Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to secure that, in future, the Foreign Office shall be open to all classes of the community?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension if he assumes that candidates for the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service are now restricted to any particular classes of the community. For the past 18 years entrance into this Service has been by open competitive examination held by the Civil Service Commissioners and equivalent to that for similar grades of the Civil Service as a whole.

Mr. Mander: But did not the Minister of Labour say the other day that there was very close liaison now between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Labour with a view to introducing a different type of citizen into the work of the Foreign Office in future? Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to elucidate that statement?

Mr. Butler: I always think that statements made by my colleagues in the Government should be elucidated by themselves, but I would say that we welcome any association with the Ministry of Labour. Having been in the Ministry of Labour myself, I know what experience they have of foreign relations, and the closer communication we have with them the better.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that the Minister of Labour made specific

reference to the arrangement of his Department with the Foreign Office, surely my right hon. Friend must know something about this arrangement?

Mr. Butler: I have already said that we have close connection with the Ministry of Labour and would welcome any assistance or advice that can be given by the Minister of Labour or his Department, which, owing to their knowledge of foreign relations, is very great and very important.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any proposals under consideration for the modification or modernisation of the entrance examination?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member will be aware that examinations are at present suspended owing to the war, but I have no doubt that, with progress and looking to the future, every opportunity of improving the present system, where it can be improved upon, will he taken.

Mr. De la Bère: Does not the Foreign Office contain too many hereditary principles?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN (GOVERNOR-GENERAL).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make to this House about the resignation of Sir Stewart Symes, K.C.M.G., K.B.E., C.M.G., D.S.O., lately Governor-General of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan?

Mr. Butler: Sir Stewart Symes, the Governor-General of the Sudan, was due to retire at the end of 1939, and the King of Egypt, on the recommendation of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, appointed in June, 1939, Sir Bernard Bourdillon as his successor as from 1st January, 1940. In view of the exceptional circumstances, the King of Egypt subsequently approved an extension of the term of office of Sir S. Symes. The latter has now retired, and the King of Egypt has, on the recommendation of His Majesty's Government, appointed Lieut.-General Sir Hubert Huddleston as Governor-General until circumstances permit Sir Bernard Bourdillon, the Governor of Nigeria, to take up the post.

Mr. Stokes: Was it not understood that Sir Stewart Symes was to take on again at the end of January and that he was to continue until the end of the war, and will the Under-Secretary give an assurance that there was no disagreement of policy between Sir Stewart Symes and the Government, which led to his resignation?

Mr. Butler: I can only say that Sir Stewart Symes retired. It was felt desirable that an officer with special local knowledge and military experience should hold the post of Governor-General of the Sudan for the duration of the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — GIBRALTAR (AIR ATTACKS).

Mr. Price: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether consideration will be given to reprisals against French forces supporting the Vichy Government who have been carrying out a systematic bombardment of Gibraltar recently?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member may be sure that we shall know how to deal with any further attacks by the forces of the Vichy Government.

Mr. Price: Can the Under-Secretary say whether these planes are French planes? Are they French planes coming across or German planes operated by German pilots coming from French Colonial territory?

Mr. Butler: I cannot add anything to what I have said.

Sir Irving Albery: Are we to take it that the Under-Secretary admits this bombardment of Gibraltar by French forces?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. It would be a pity to add anything to what I have said or to infer anything from it. There was a certain incident, and I have given a certain answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

ETHIOPIAN CHURCH, JERUSALEM.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the convent and other property held by the representatives of the Ethiopian Government and members of the Ethiopian Church in Jerusalem, prior

to November, 1938, were restored to these owners?

Mr. Butler: The representatives of the Ethiopian Government and the members of the Ethiopian Church in Jerusalem have never been deprived of the properties in question and, therefore, no question arises of restoring them to their owners.

JEWISH IMMIGRANTS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of certificates issued during the last six months enabling Jews to enter Palestine; the numbers already there of these; and from what countries the quota will be emigrated with the respective numbers from the same?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): Five thousand two hundred and sixty-five certificates were issued to Jewish immigrants for the period April-September, 1940. It is estimated that, including wives and children, these certificates would permit the entry of about 8,700 persons in all. The number of Jewish immigrants who actually entered Palestine during the same period was 1,725. The 5,265 certificates were distributed among 36 countries. The major issues were: United Kingdom 1,400, Rumania 936, Lithuania 772, Hungary 610, Italy 326, Switzerland 242, Latvia 221, Yugoslavia 186, France 126. The validity of all immigration certificates granted for the period April-September has been extended to 31st December.

Mr. Adams: Is it intended to increase the quota during the ensuing six months?

Mr. Hall: That is another question.

Mr. Mander: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many during that period came in without permission?

Mr. Hall: Not without notice.

OVERSEAS EVACUATION.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will invite the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to become officially associated with our own Government in arranging for the evacuation of British children, invalids and old people to places of safety overseas;


whether it is possible to secure Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ships, as well as our own, for this purpose; and whether he will consider securing the co-operation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and other neutral Governments, for urgent humanitarian purposes?

Mr. Butler: While His Majesty's Government naturally welcome all offers of assistance on humanitarian grounds from neutral Governments and persons, they have never seen their way to invite the co-operation of any foreign Government in this matter. As the hon. Member will be aware, it has been found necessary to suspend overseas evacuation for the present.

Mr. Sorensen: Would not the Under-Secretary agree that one should secure co-operation between ourselves and certain neutral Governments on humanitarian grounds? Would that not be likely to have political and other benefits where a direct approach might fail?

Mr. Butler: I said that we would welcome all offers of assistance on humanitarian grounds.

Mr. Shinwell: Did we not seek the assistance of the American Government, and is that not a foreign Government?

Mr. Butler: I do not think we technically sought their assistance, although we are very grateful for anything that the American Government have been prepared to do.

Mr. Sorensen: Would not the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to try and overcome the technical difficulties?

Mr. Butler: I think that, in view of the last sentences of my reply, and because overseas evacuation has been suspended for the present, no further action can be taken. The value of the hon. Gentleman's observations, however, is fully realised by the Government.

OIL EXPORTS TO JAPAN.

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any knowledge of the position with regard to the arrangements for the supply to Japan during the next six months, of oil by Dutch, British and American Oil Companies in the Netherlands East

Indies; whether these were made with the knowledge and approval of the British Government; and whether the embargo imposed at Hong Kong against supplies of all kinds to China has now been lifted?

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the large contracts of sale of oil from Dutch East Indies to Japan in which both British and American firms are concerned?

Sir Robert Gower: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the sale by the combined oil companies of oil to Japan?

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any understanding between Great Britain and the Dutch Government for the disposal of the raw products of the Dutch East Indies, and particularly as to the sale of oil?

Mr. Butler: I am aware that in connection with the visit of a Japanese Trade Delegation to Batavia discussions are taking place in regard to oil supplies from the Netherlands East Indies. According to my Noble Friend's information, no agreement has yet been reached and the negotiations are continuing. His Majesty's Government and the United States Government will continue to be kept informed of their general progress. Hon. Members will realise that the decision about the general character of any arrangements for the future rests with the Netherlands East Indies Government. There is no general embargo on supplies from Hong Kong to China. Restrictions imposed from time to time in the past two years on certain specified materials in the interests of the Colony have not been withdrawn.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that the Dutch Government is one of our Allies in this war and that Japan has joined our enemies, can we have an assurance that the British Government will use all the influence in their power to prevent this deal going through and further supplies of a warlike nature going to Japan?

Mr. Butler: I realise the importance of the point which the hon. Member has raised, but I must refer him to my


answer, in which I said that any decision about the general character of the arrangement must rest with the Netherlands East Indies Government. But I can assure the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government and the United States Government are being kept fully informed and appreciate the importance of the transactions in progress.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is that answer the best the right hon. Gentleman can do? Does he wish the world to understand that the last word in this matter comes from the Dutch Government? Does he not realise that the British and American Governments together have a veto at present on anything that the Dutch Government might wish to do in connection with supplies to Japan?

Mr. Butler: The Netherlands East Indies Government have sovereignty over the East Indies.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Will some representations be made by our Government to the Dutch Government on this point?

Mr. Butler: I can assure the House that there is complete contact between the Governments concerned and that they are keeping each other informed of the progress of the negotiations.

Mr. Gallacher: Have not the Government in this country a controlling say in the Royal Dutch Oil Company?

Mr. Mander: I beg to give notice that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall call attention to this matter again at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Ambassador in Chungking has sent reports concerning the indiscriminate bombing of the civilian population in Chungking, Kunming and elsewhere in China; and whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to permit British companies to sell oil to Japan for the conduct of the war?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend is at present awaiting a report on civilian air-raid casualties in China. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given on the present aspect of this question.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of Mr. Matsuoka's recent declaration that if Germany and Italy were in danger of being beaten, it would be necessary for Japan to help them, should not the Government now decide that the British-controlled companies should not sell oil to Japan, thereby avoiding our experience with Italy?

Mr. Butler: The matter is not quite so simple as the hon. Member makes out. The location of the companies in question and the countries in which they are situated must also he taken into consideration. I realise, however, the value of the suggestion made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Shinwell: Would it not be disgraceful if British finance was utilised for the purpose of providing oil for Japan? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House a more explicit reply?

Mr. Butler: I think that if the hon. Member studies the intricacies of the subject and the location of the companies concerned, he will see in my reply the satisfaction he desires.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman give myself and other hon. Members an opportunity of discussing this matter, so that we can be informed on the subject?

Mr. Butler: Most certainly; I think that will be very valuable.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not the best hope of avoiding war with Japan in the prevention of sales of oil to Japan and the purchase of oil by ourselves instead?

Mr. Silkin: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he is aware that negotiations are taking place for the supply of oil to Japan by a number of Dutch and other companies, including a company in which there is substantial British control; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware that such negotiations are taking place and is watching them closely.

Mr. Silkin: Are we going to treat Japan as we treated Italy, and supply her with oil to use against us?

Mr. Foot: I think that the position was fully covered by the answers given earlier to-day by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Minister is in a position to deal adequately with this question?

Mr. Foot: It was pointed out earlier to-day that the arrangements must be made by the Government of Netherlands East Indies.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If this is a question of pre-emption will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to ask the Treasury for the funds required?

Mr. Foot: We are always very ready to ask the Treasury for funds.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the hon. Gentleman have been satisfied with the answer given by his right hon. Friend if he had remained on the back benches?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

COMMUNIQUÉS.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the irritation caused thereby, he will see that the words "military objectives" are left out of future communiqués, even at the cost of less precision?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Sir Annesley Somerville: In view of the fact that the enemy has treated hospitals as military objectives, might it not be considered wise to house captured German airmen in our hospitals?

BILLETING.

Mr. Silkin: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that members of the Royal Air Force who are billeted in private houses sometimes have to share a bed with male members of the household; and whether he will give instructions that all men billeted are to have a separate bed?

Captain Balfour: No such cases have been brought to my notice, and I shall be grateful for any specific information

which the hon. Member is able to give me. I have arranged for attention to be drawn to the existing instructions on this point, which make it clear that separate beds should be provided.

PRINCE VON STAHREMBERG.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for Air the salary and emoluments now received by Prince Von Stahremberg, serving in the French Air Force; and whether they are being paid at present by His Majesty's Government?

Captain Balfour: Prince Von Stahremberg holds the rank of lieutenant in the Free French Air Force. He receives pay and allowances appropriate to his rank, which amount to £1 4s. 11d. a day. All expenditure on the Free French Air Force is met in the first instance from funds advanced by His Majesty's Government. Final settlement will be a matter for subsequent arrangement.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is it not rather indecent that this man, who assassinated a democracy in Austria, should now be allowed to fight on our side and be paid by us in a war which is for democracy and against all that Stahremberg stood for?

Captain Balfour: I reject wholeheartedly the suggestion that to anyone who is willing now to risk his life in the air and fight in our cause we do not owe a debt of gratitude.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the least aware of this man's past?

Captain Balfour: I am aware of what this man is doing for us at present.

Mr. Woodburn: Is there any suggestion in the employment of Prince Von Stahremberg that we are going to impose him on Austria after the war?

Mr. Silverman: Is it suggested that this gentleman is more worthy to fight for democracy than many internees in this country?

Captain Balfour: That is quite a different Question from that on the Paper. I think that this man, if he is willing to fight and to risk his life in our cause, deserves our gratitude.

Mr. Shinwell: Suppose his name was Stahremberg, instead of Prince Von Stahremberg, would that make any difference?

Captain Balfour: None at all.

Mr. Wedgwood: Why will you not allow other aliens from Austria who hate Nazism to fight? You keep them in prison and allow a scoundrel like that to fight for democracy. I want an answer.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

ROYAL NAVY (FLAG OFFICERS' AGES).

Mr. Stokes: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the ages of the officers in command of the main units of the Fleet to-day, and give at the same time the ages of those in corresponding positions at the end of the last war?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): The average age of the flag officers of the Home and Mediterranean Fleets at present is 54 years 7 months. The corresponding average in the Grand and Mediterranean Fleets in 1918 was 51 years. It should be remembered, however, that there were in 1918 many more commands for rear-admirals and commodores and that this accounts for the lower average age. I would also refer to the answer given on a similar subject by my right hon. Friend on 31st July.

Mr. Stokes: That is not really an answer to my Question. I want to know the individual ages of commanders of individual commands.

Sir V. Warrender: I am prepared to let the hon. Member have the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY TRAINS (REFRESHMENT FACILITIES, ARMED FORCES).

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced by soldiers on long-distance trains owing to non-existent or necessarily limited restaurant accommodation, and the unsuitability of the meals and their prices to the needs of travelling soldiers; and whether he is prepared to arrange with the railways for the provision of substantial meal packages

at cheap prices on such trains or at appropriate stations?

The Minister of Transport (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): The railway companies, when they receive notice in advance from the responsible authority, already provide packed meals at reduced prices to parties of Service men, and I am consulting the Departments concerned as to the possibility of extending this arrangement to provide for sailors, soldiers and airmen travelling alone or in small parties. I will let my hon. Friend know the result of my inquiries. Apart from this, as I informed my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) on 8th October, canteens and refreshment rooms are available at stations to meet the needs of members of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, on trains taking as long as 13 hours to reach their destination, individual soldiers gathered together may make up parties of as many as 60, 100 or 200 on one train and that it is extremely difficult for them to receive service at the canteen? If such packages could be provided, it would he a great convenience.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am considering that.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the 4 o'clock from King's Cross to the North is a typical instance of this kind of thing? It is more like a cattle truck than a human train.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am aware of that.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the right lion. and gallant Gentleman consult with the Secretary of State for War with a view to getting soldiers from the main railway junctions to their homes?

Mr. Bellenger: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider having someone at the main termini to take a note of soldiers travelling individually and telegraph down the line, as people can do if they want to order refreshments en route?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: That is one of the possibilities that I was considering.

Mrs. Adamson: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider extending this to women and children?

TOLL-GATE CHARGES (ARMED FORCES).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Transport whether he can now give the results of the circular letter which was sent out by the Ministry of Transport to the tollgate owners throughout the country in connection with the waiving of charges to the Home Guard and other members of His Majesty's Forces?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Ninety-two cases are known, and inquiries have been completed in 84 cases. In 30 of these the tolls are statutory and members of His Majesty's Forces, including the Home Guard, on duty, are exempted by the Army and Air Force Acts. The remaining 54 cases are private tolls, and in 50 of them the owners have agreed for the duration of the war to exempt members of His Majesty's Forces on duty, though in a few instances the question of compensation has been raised. In four cases exemption has been refused. In one, the tolls are part of a trust estate, and the trustees state that they have no power to grant exemption. In another, the owners state that exemption was granted, but was withdrawn owing to damage committed. In another, the road is of little use, being unfit for traffic heavier than motor cycles. In the other, an arrangement has been made with the local military command to charge special rates for military traffic.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make every endeavour to bring these outstanding toll-gate owners into line and tell them that this is a national matter, and that the country will not stand for their small minor interests as opposed to the affairs of the services of the country?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The hon. Member will appreciate that we have solved the main problem and all that remains is to tidy up the details.

Mr. Silverman: Will not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider whether these antediluvian arrangements could be abolished by Defence Regulations for the period of the war?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I think that would be difficult.

Sir Herbert Williams: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware of the toll imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on all motorists by more than 50 per cent. since the war started?

FURNITURE REMOVALS (PETROL).

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Regional Transport Commissioner in South Wales has issued an order to refuse petrol coupons to furniture removers in that area to go into other regions for the purpose of performing removals; whether he is aware that this action has strengthened the position of removers in bombed areas who have been profiteering; and whether he will remove this restriction?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The action taken by the Regional Transport Commissioner in this matter was designed to economise fuel and vehicles by securing better back loads, but I may say that the decision to which my hon. Friend refers was reversed on 14th October, since when supplementary fuel rations have been available to South Wales operators for carrying out removals from other Regions. I am prepared to investigate any specific instances of profiteering in furniture removals brought to my notice.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the Minister aware that a large amount of empty military transport is travelling about the country? While, of course, it may be difficult to co-ordinate that movement with civil transport, will he consider to what extent empty military transport could be used to relieve the transport of material and personnel throughout the country during the next few months?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I will explore it, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is very difficult; however, I will see what can be done.

Mr. Parker: What steps does the Minister propose to take to check profiteering when instances are brought to his notice?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: We have dealt with several cases, and we have got the money back in one.

FARES (INCREASE).

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can now announce


the terms of the report of the Charges (Railway Control) Consultative Committee on the matter of increased railway costs; and what steps he proposes to take?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The report of the committee is being printed, and copies will be available at the Vote Office within a few days. The committee's main recommendations are that no increase be made in the charges for season tickets, in workmen's fares, or in ordinary fares on the services of the London Passenger Transport Board except the coach services; and that other fares and charges be increased by approximately 6 per cent. The increase of 6 per cent., plus the 10 per cent. which came into force on 1st May represents an increase of 16⅔rds per cent. over pre-war charges. The Government have decided to accept these recommendations, and I shall make an Order accordingly.

Mr. Ridley: Does this mean that the £46,000,000 of increased costs is not now to be secured by the increased charges? Has the Minister under review any subsequent reports, or any further recommendation in contemplation, for further increases?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Of the £46,000,000, the 10 per cent. charge looks after a certain amount, and this extra 6 per cent. clears it up. There is, of course, a lag because we did not introduce it earlier, but it should look after itself unless any untoward war damage comes along. As I have said in answer to another Question, the agreement is rather in the melting-pot by virtue of the new arrangement which the Prime Minister adumbrated with regard to war damage. That was wrapped up in the agreement, and the question will therefore have to be re-considered from rather a new angle.

Mr. Silkin: Will the Minister give the House an opportunity of discussing these proposals before he actually makes the Order?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: No, Sir, I am afraid the Government have decided on this increase. Of course, a general Debate could take place upon the report.

Mr. Silkin: Surely a Debate is of no use if the proposals have been decided

upon, because the House would not have an opportunity of discussing the rejection of them. Will the Minister give the House an opportunity to consider the proposals before they are accepted?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The position has already become bad because of the increasing lag which is occurring due to increases in costs. It is my duty to see that the railways are healthy, and I cannot allow the matter to drift on and the position to get worse and worse.

Mr. Davidson: Did the Minister say "healthy" or "wealthy"?

Lieut. - Colonel Moore - Brabazon: Healthy.

Sir Percy Harris: Does the Minister realise that the travelling public are being given poorer facilities at a higher charge?

RAILWAY TRAVEL, LONDON (ALTERNATIVE SERVICES).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport whether, for the duration of the war, he will consider arranging that all fare tickets shall be available at any time by any alternative method of travel in the London transport area; and whether he will arrange for cheap weekly season tickets to be available for the same alternatives?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: To implement my predecessor's announcement of 8th September last, the railway companies and the London Passenger Transport Board have given instructions to their staff to allow passengers holding tickets available on services in the London area which are suspended or seriously impaired to travel by alternative road or rail services without extra payment. To avoid abuse, some discretion is allowed to the staff in the interpretation of these instructions. The effect of my hon. Friend's suggestion might well be to encourage unnecessary travel and to divert traffic from the normal services, when available, to emergency services. Both these courses must be avoided, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter is being closely watched.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that nowadays no one wants to travel unnecessarily, and, in these circumstances, does he not consider that this proposal would simplify the organisation and minimise the hardship caused to the travelling public?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I appreciate that, but we must get the travelling public on to their normal method of travelling as much as we possibly can. The hon. Member will appreciate that it takes 22 buses to equal one train, and 14 motor cars to equal one bus. Therefore, as much as possible, we must get the people back to the trains, and when they fail, then there is always the alternative.

SEED POTATOES (TRANSPORT, SCOTLAND).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered the memorandum from the Scottish Seed Potato Trade Association regarding the disorganisation of seed potato transport; aid has he any statement to make?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I have obtained a copy of a memorandum circulated to Scottish Members of this House about the refusal of the railway companies to double-sheet wagons of seed potatoes. Owing to the shortage of wagon sheets to meet present requirements, a direction was issued on 26th August last prohibiting the double-sheeting of any traffic. All practicable steps are being taken to increase the supply of sheets, but until there are sufficient for all traffic requiring to be sheeted I am not prepared to except seed potatoes from the direction.

Mr. Davidson: Has the Minister investigated the statement of this Association that there are thousands of workers idle who normally produced this sheeting which the railway companies could very easily obtain? Has he also investigated the charge that this transport is being thoroughly disorganised, and does he intend to inquire into this point?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The question of alternative sheeting is being explored, but my hon. Friend will realise that the chief supply came from the Low Countries. As an Irishman, I should like to see potatoes protected, but I do not see why these potatoes should have preferential treatment above everything else. One of the difficulties, as my hon. Friend knows, is the shortage of sheeting.

Mr. Davidson: Has the Minister investigated the specific statement of this Association that there are 4,000 workers in Dundee unemployed who normally produce this sheeting? If so, does he

intend to make any investigation in regard to it?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I will look into that.

Mr. Woodburn: If the Minister cannot allow these wagons to be double-sheeted, will he state what facilities he is going to introduce to protect these potatoes from frost in order to safeguard the food supplies of the country?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I shall have to refer that to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. All I can say is that I cannot give preferential treatment to one particular commodity when there is such a shortage.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

TELEGRAMS TO NEUTRAL COUNTRIES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Information whether he will consider the advisability of making arrangements to prevent telegrams being sent to neutral countries unless the person concerned has established his bona fides with the local police?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): A suggestion similar to that proposed by the hon. Member has been fully considered on several occasions by all the Government Departments concerned. It was decided that any such measure would act in restraint of trade and lawful communication while not substantially increasing security.

Mr. Mander: Is the Minister aware that at the present time anyone can send a telegram to a neutral country, either in his own name or in a purely imaginary name? Is that not a most unsatisfactory state of affairs? Will he consider the question of a person, before he can send a telegram, having to satisfy some authority as to his bona fides?

Mr. Cooper: This question is really a question of security. All those Ministries and Departments responsible for security have thoroughly investigated it on more than one occasion, and are satisfied that it would not be worth while introducing it.

Mr. Garro Jones: As a Member who raised this question before, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that,


although the Departments have investigated this question, many persons competent to form a good opinion are thoroughly dissatisfied with the results of the decision? Does he recognise that a telegram sent to a neutral country to-day, having regard to the ramifications of the German secret service, is a telegram sent to Germany, and will he have the matter reconsidered in the light of that fundamental principle?

Mr. Cooper: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that all telegrams sent from this country are subject to censorship and are inspected by the authorities and very carefully investigated. If there are any grounds for suspicion that information is being sent to the enemy, steps are taken. This subject has been so often investigated that I cannot undertake to investigate it again.

Mr. Garro Jones: Has it not been investigated on the basis of a prima facie censorship of telegrams and not with regard to the authenticity of the persons who sent them? Someone who merely looks at a telegram, prima facie, is not able to say whether it is in code or not.

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir, the question has been considered from every point of view by the authorities most competent to form an opinion about it.

Mr. Mander: Could not the Government show the same energy in this matter of security as they have in rounding up aliens?

BROADCASTS (FOREIGN LANGUAGES).

Captain Plugge (for Mr. Vernon Bartlett): asked the Minister of Information why the time given to broadcasts in foreign languages has recently been reduced?

Mr. Cooper: It was found essential to make certain adjustments in time to preserve the efficiency of broadcasts generally, having regard to the resources of the B.B.C. No foreign language service has been discontinued.

Captain Plugge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Great Britain scuttled its only long wave length at the outbreak of war, and therefore operates no long wave length at all, while the Germans operate eight long wave lengths and that

our foreign broadcasts reach only a sprinkling of listeners abroad in the countries intended, and that we are losing as a result every hour several thousand adherents to our cause?

Mr. Cooper: As I have informed my hon. and gallant Friend on previous occasions, though the B.B.C. is working under considerable difficulties the reduction in the number of foreign broadcasts is very inconsiderable, and broadcasts in no language have been stopped altogether. I can assure the House that in the present situation every possible step is being taken to improve and to strengthen and to lengthen our broadcasts and our propaganda by broadcasts all over the world.

Captain Plugge: The puny broadcasting system is not capable of handling one-tenth the propaganda required.

Mr. Granville: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any increased jamming of these foreign broadcasts?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, there is a great deal of jamming of the foreign broadcasts.

Mr. Granville: Can the Prime Minister's speech to the French people which was interrupted by jamming the other night be re-broadcast from the disc recording?

Mr. Cooper: It has been re-broadcast several times with, I think, satisfactory results. Although the broadcast was jammed in some places it was clearly heard in other places, both in this country and abroad, including France.

Captain Plugge: Since these broadcasts are being jammed, is not that the reason why we should have a large number of broadcasts on long wave lengths and powerful medium wave stations, on the basis that if some are blocked others will get through, as in the case of tanks, aeroplanes and other weapons of war?

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the concluding sentence of the Supplementary Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge) referring to the loss of many thousands of listeners?

Mr. Cooper: I hope that is not true.

HIGHER EDUCATION, BRIGHTON.

Mr. Parker: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, as from next year, the Brighton Education Authority is refusing to give grants for university education; that this has already resulted in a drastic decline in the number of children going into the sixth forms of the secondary schools, and to the deflection of these children into commercial courses; and whether he will consider producing a scheme for pooling the allowances made throughout the country for the purpose of higher education in order to produce greater equality of opportunity than now obtains?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): I am not aware of any decision of the Brighton Education Authority such as that suggested. I will make inquiry into the matter and communicate with the hon. Member.

ARMED FORCES PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Mainwaring: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider making it possible for a person not dependent upon a soldier at the time of his enlistment to become so regarded on account of the death of the ones previously providing the necessary support?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The circumstances stated do not enable me to give a precise answer. Assuming that the case was not one in which the Service Department concerned could act, it might become a matter with which my Ministry could deal under the War Service Grants scheme. If the hon. Member has a specific case in mind and will communicate with me, I shall be happy to consider it.

Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases where no pension is being received the sons were allotting 75., and sometimes more, and that when they were killed the money was stopped?

Sir W. Womersley: I will bear that in mind.

CHINA (EXPORT CREDIT).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether His Majesty's Government will grant a further export credit to the Chinese Government; and whether such credit will be made available for the purchase by China of oil from Burma?

Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Guarantees given under the Export Credits Scheme are regulated by the Export Guarantees Act, 1939, and the Overseas Trade Guarantees Act, 1939. The powers conferred by these Acts are only applicable to exports from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that the credits made available to China will be exhausted by the end of this year, would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether a further extension of credit from this country can be made available?

Mr. Johnstone: If an application is made by the Chinese Government, the matter will be considered.

MINISTRY OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the Government's policy in connection with the establishment of a Ministry of Building, in view of the urgent need for a comprehensive national scheme of demolition squads, clearing, planning, repairing and rebuilding?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Prime Minister whether the newly appointed Minister of Works and Buildings will be vested with authority enabling him to recommend to Parliament amendments to the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, of which Section 1 permits land to be sterilised for a contemplated road which may never be proceeded with; and, if it is, undue delay is incurred before a final decision is taken and compensation paid which in the meantime causes owners of land considerable inconvenience and financial hardship?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I would ask the hon. Members to await the statement which it is hoped to make on the next Sitting day.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

RATIONED COMMODITIES (RETAILERS' SURPLUSES).

Miss Rathbone: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made on 7th October by the counsel for a tradesman charged at Llanelly with supplying bacon to a customer without a coupon; that, if a tradesman had bacon not applied for by registered customers, he was required to destroy it, and that hundredweights of bacon were so destroyed in that town every week; and whether he will make clear what is the duty of a tradesman so situated with regard to bacon, or any perishable rationed commodity of which his registered supply exceeds his sale in a particular week?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George): Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend's attention has been drawn to the statement referred to, which was not supported by any evidence and is not in accordance with the facts. Retail traders are in a position to assess with considerable accuracy their requirements of rationed foods. If by any chance the retailer has a surplus of a perishable commodity, which cannot be held over the week-end, he can obtain authority from the Food Control Committee to dispose of it.

Miss Rathbone: Will considerable publicity be given to that reply, because it is clear that a good many tradesmen are under the impression that they are obliged to destroy their stuff?

RATIONS (BILLETED SOLDIERS AND HOUSEHOLDERS).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the difference in rations allowed as between soldiers billeted in private houses and the householders?

Major Lloyd George: The amounts of the weekly rations allowed to soldiers billeted in private houses and to householders in which there is a difference are respectively; sugar, 16 ounces and 8 ounces; bacon, 8 ounces and 4 ounces; meat, 72 ounces and 2s. 2d. retail price.

Mr. George Griffiths: Does the Minister think that a soldier requires so much

more bacon than a collietr who has to get the coal to keep the country going?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

WARDENS' PAY.

Mr. Brooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now recognise the additional work and responsibilities falling upon post and district wardens by granting them rates of pay higher than that of ordinary wardens?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): As indicated in the reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) on 15th October, this question is now under examination.

Mr. Brooke: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this applies not to the wardens' service only, but to all Civil Defence services; and will he see that they are treated alike when this matter is put right?

Mr. Mabane: Yes, the first-aid parties and the rescue parties are being considered in this connection.

SUBVERSIVE STATEMENTS (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary how many persons have been proceeded against since 24th July for making statements calculated to cause alarm and despondency; how many of these persons have been convicted; and how many of such cases are being, or will be, reviewed with a view to the modification of the penalty inflicted?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I presume that the hon. Member has in mind proceedings for offences against Defence Regulation 39BA. Such proceedings have been authorised by the Director of Public Prosecutions in 47 cases since and including 24th July last. Thirty of the persons concerned were convicted and sentenced, six were bound over and one was discharged under the Probation of Offenders Act. In the remaining 10 cases the results of the proceedings have not yet been reported. Four cases have been reviewed in consequence of representations made, but it was not felt that in


any of them the circumstances called for any interference with the penalty imposed by the court. No further general review of such cases is in contemplation.

Mr. Mander: Can my hon. Friend say what were the maximum penalties imposed?

Mr. Peake: I am afraid I cannot, but the penalties, generally speaking, have been on a much lower scale than they were in the cases which were reviewed by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the fact that some time ago many of these cases had to be reviewed and the sentences reduced, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that in similar circumstances harsh judgments are not being inflicted to-day?

Mr. Peake: My right hon. Friend has examined these cases and has come to the conclusion that no general review is called for.

Mr. Mander: Can my hon. Friend say whether Mr. H. G. Wells is to be prosecuted?

Mr. Silverman: Does the Director of Public Prosecutions himself consider each individual case before prosecution is authorised, or is his consent automatically given on the application of the local police authority?

Mr. Peake: Each case has to be considered individually by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

CONDUCT OF A MEMBER (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Mr. Benson, Major Sir Edward Cadogan, Mr. Denman, Sir Geoffrey Ellis, Captain Ernest Evans, Colonel Gretton, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, Mr. Pickthorn, Sir George Schuster and Mr. Spens nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Member:

Ordered, That Five be the quorum:

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to adjourn from place to place;

Ordered, That the Committee have power to report from time to time.—[Mr. Attlee.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1940.

Estimate presented,—of a further sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March, 1941 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 170.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PROLONGATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is of considerable constitutional importance, but the issue is in itself clear, and I suggest that the circumstances which warrant its introduction are also clear. The Bill itself is short, and therefore I do not think the House will expect me to speak at length upon it, despite the fact, which the Government fully recognises, that it is a Bill of real constitutional importance, seeing that the prolongation of the life of Parliament is proposed. Section 7 of the Parliament Act, 1911, provided that the maximum duration of a Parliament should be five years, and Clause 1 of this Bill provides that that Section should read as though it were six years instead of five years. In consequence the life of this Parliament, which would ordinarily expire on 25th November this year, will be continued until 25th November, 1941. If the life of Parliament has to be further prolonged, it will be necessary for a new Bill to be introduced some time before 25th November, 1941.
During the last war the successive Acts of 1916 to 1918 which extended for a year the life of Parliament also dealt with the registration of electors. The House will remember that it agreed last year to legislation which continued the existing register in force and made provision whereby no new register is to be made. In view of that legislation, it is not necessary that this Bill should deal with registration matters. I think the House will agree, having regard to the stress and strain which now rest upon municipal officers and the local authorities, who would be concerned with the registration of electors, that it would be a very heavy burden for them to make a new register

at this stage and to keep it up to date in the ordinary way. Moreover, there are considerable movements of the population consequent upon the war, so that in any case the register would shortly become out of date. Even in times of peace, by the time we get to the eleventh month of the registration year it is remarkable to what a considerable extent registers are out of date, and if that is so in times of peace it must be still more so in the circumstances of the present war. Therefore, the existing provision is that the register remains in force, and it is not proposed under that legislation, in fact it is not possible under that legislation, for a new register to be prepared while that Act continues in force.
The reason for the prolongation of Parliament is that a General Election, while it would not be impossible, would be exceedingly difficult in existing circumstances. I leave to the imagination of hon. Members who are as familiar with electoral battle as I am, the very great difficulties that would be involved in the active prosecution of a General Election in the circumstances that exist at the present time. I do not think it is necessary for me to dilate upon those practical circumstances, and, therefore, in proposing to prolong the life of Parliament, we are following the precedent of the last war when the case for it was not as strong as it is to-day. I have no doubt that the House will approve the Bill and that the life of Parliament will be extended for one year.
There is another matter of importance to which I would refer in a brief statement. In making this statement, I am doing so with the authority of the Prime Minister, the matter having been very carefully considered and a deliberate decision reached. An appeal to the electorate must always remain the final constitutional method of resolving grave issues of national policy. No one can foresee what circumstances will arise, but in normal conditions it will be the desire of His Majesty's Government, when a General Election again becomes practicable, to give sufficient notice for the creation of a new register, and this interval would also afford an opportunity for the House to consider, if it so desired, questions connected with changes of our electoral system.
I do not think it is necessary for me to add to what I have already said. I think the Bill will be agreed by all, or at any rate the general body of, hon. Members, and I hope, therefore, that the Second Reading of the Bill will be agreed to.

Mr. Lees-Smith: This is a simple Bill, and, as the Home Secretary has explained to the House, its purpose is really self-evident. I cannot imagine that there will be anywhere any desire to oppose its passage into law, but the Home Secretary has raised one or two connected subjects, which arise out of the Bill and which I am rather surprised to find occupied in the last war not only days 'out weeks of Parliamentary time. I do not imagine that we shall find it necessary to spend the same amount of time on them during this war, but I would like to make one or two preliminary observations about these connected subjects. One of these, which was, perhaps, covered in the general remarks made by the Home Secretary, is the question of the re-distribution of seats. This question was urgent before the war and will be a great deal more urgent at its close.

Mr. Speaker: To debate the re-distribution of seats will be out of order on the Bill. This is a one-Clause Bill dealing with only one subject, which is the prolongation of this Parliament for one year. We cannot debate any other subject than that.

Sir Percy Harris: Is it not possible for us to say that, although the House agrees to prolonging its life for another year, we should have some assurance that the Government will discharge their duty and provide proper machinery for the election of the new Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: That statement was made on behalf of the Prime Minister, who gave an assurance to the House that the question will be considered.

Sir P. Harris: Cannot we debate what the Home Secretary said on behalf of the Prime Minister? It is the key of the whole Bill. The right hon. Gentleman read a carefully and skilfully written statement; can we not say that we ought to have an opportunity to discuss it before we pass the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: The Home Secretary merely made a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister. He made no reference to it and did not debate it.

Sir Richard Acland: It is true that the right hon. Gentleman did not debate the matter. He merely read the statement, but he indicated that in his view it was satisfactory. Surely any hon. Member can say that, in his own view, the statement was unsatisfactory, and that something might be added to it.

Mr. Speaker: The Home Secretary made no comment on the statement; he merely read the statement on behalf of the Prime Minister.

Sir R. Acland: He said that in his view it was satisfactory.

Sir P. Harris: He made the statement part of his speech. The fact that it was written by a more skilled hand does not make it any less a part of his speech.

Mr. Speaker: It has nothing to do with the Bill now before the House.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: The Home Secretary emphasised the importance of the statement he read and said that it was a Cabinet decision; would it not be in order for us to ask for an amplification or explanation of the statement?

Mr. Speaker: At some other time it would be in order, but not on the Bill.

Sir P. Harris: If that is so, the right hon. Gentleman's statement was out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Not in the form in which it was made.

Mr. Benson: Will it not be in order for me to oppose the Bill on the ground that re-distribution of seats is immediately necessary?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member likes, he can oppose it on that ground, but he cannot discuss the question.

Mr. Lees-Smith: My remarks on re-distribution had come to an end. I merely wished to call attention to the fact that it was a connected question which would have to be dealt with before the next General Election. At this point I proposed to pass away—

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss that question, it must be done upon a Motion, a definite Motion, dealing with the subject, and not on the Bill, which is very narrow in scope.

Mr. Lees-Smith: The Home Secretary closed his speech with a statement of the intentions of the Government regarding a number of questions which would have to be settled before the final Bill for the prolongation of Parliament was passed. I am afraid that this Bill will have to be regarded as the first of a series. It has been suggested, and I noticed the suggestion in the Press, that some of the subjects to which the Home Secretary referred might be put before a Speaker's Conference as they were during the last war. When I read the suggestion it was not clear to me what the Speaker's Conference would be about. In the last war the Speaker's Conference dealt with questions like votes for women, adult suffrage, plural voting and, I think, also with re-distribution; but, as a matter of fact, those questions were settled. There may be some scraps of them left now, but not enough, I should imagine, to justify the formality of a Speaker's Conference. One question to which the right hon. Gentleman referred that might eventually become the subject of some kind of all-party conference, is that concerning the register. My impression is that when we are preparing for the next election we shall find that it will not be practicable to take the existing register and merely bring it up to date. It was not practicable to do so in the last war. A special register had to be prepared for the election, and a special Bill had to be passed through this House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot go beyond the Bill.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: If I may say so with deference, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your Ruling, and that it would be quite wrong to go into detail on a subject matter which is outside the purview of this Bill. I appreciate that, and therefore I concur with it entirely, but surely this Bill, which produces a certain effect on Parliamentary elections, has a bearing on some of these other questions, and a slight reference to that matter—not long or detailed—is

surely necessary when this Bill is being debated?

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what the Home Secretary did in the speech which he made, and that is why I did not call him to order. To refer to these questions in order to debate them would be out of order.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I do not propose to debate them, but part of the Home Secretary's speech was a fairly detailed examination of the registration problem which is involved in the prolongation of Parliament. That is why I have devoted some sentences to that part of his speech. With regard to his remarks on registration, I was giving it as my opinion that it would not be enough merely to bring up to date the present register to which he referred. A new register would have to be prepared for reasons to which he himself referred. That is to say, he said that there had been considerable movements of population. I would say that that is an under-statement. He himself, in this very City this week, is presiding over what I should say is the greatest migration in history, and under those circumstances I think the whole register would be so knocked to pieces, with parts of the population of London living perhaps in Devon and Somerset and quite possibly not returning, that we should have to have a new register with the new Bill. I agree with the remark that now to prepare such a register or a programme of redistribution would be a sheer waste of effort, because probably the migration that will take place during the rest of the war will be still greater than those which have taken place and which, as he has suggested, have put our last register already out of date.
I will not go into detail, but I will make this remark. At the end of his speech the Home Secretary referred to the War Cabinet statement that later on the House might desire to discuss electoral reform, and that in fact was one of the subjects which was discussed at the Conference under one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker. If there is to be any kind of suggestion that electoral reform should be the subject of some all-party discussion, I would only say at this stage that the whole idea of a discussion of that kind, say, under the authority of Mr. Speaker or any other person, is that there


should be some possibility of agreement. In my opinion, on a question like proportional representation, for example, there is less possibility of agreement now than there was during the last war. An attempt was made in the last war, and it ended in smoke. Disagreement is greater now, and many Members would find stronger objections to entering into such discussions now, after their experience of France and Germany, than they would 22 years ago.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that sufficient notice would be given of the preparation of a new register. Even at this stage I venture to hope that in the case of any notice that is given, the precedent of the last war need not necessarily be followed. The election took place three weeks after the Armistice, and that was one of the most demoralising influences in the whole of my political life. I hope that fact will be borne in mind. A Prolongation of Parliament Bill, whenever that may be passed, would usher into existence after the war a Parliament which would be confronted with far greater difficulties than those which confronted Parliament after the last war. At present we have a simple task intellectually—to drive ahead. But when the war is over and Parliament then meets, it will be faced with a series of problems more bafflng and desperate than any others that we have had to face in Europe. I hope that we shall avoid a Parliament created under such conditions. As a matter of fact, this Bill does not raise a matter between the House and the Government. It raises a matter between the people and Parliament. If the people wanted an election, if they had no confidence in Parliament, I do not think that, with all its difficulties, we could pass this Bill. But my impression is that those conditions do not prevail; I believe that Parliament stands very high in the estimate of the people to-day. It was never higher in my lifetime. Indeed, our Sittings are part of the means by which we are maintaining the confidence of the public. For that reason I cannot trace in the country a vestige of a demand for an election now, and I am satisfied that in passing this Bill this House will be reflecting the opinion of the people.

Sir Percy Harris: This is apparently a very

innocent Bill. It is very short, with two Clauses and very few words, and it was presented to the House by the Home Secretary in an extraordinarily brief speech, with the minimum of words and very little explanation. He said it all very fairly in that respect. But do not let us under-rate its importance. After all, this is said to be a breach of the Constitution to some extent. The Constitution now provides for a five years' Parliament, for a very good purpose—to keep us in contact with the electorate. But there it is, we have to be realists. I recognise, as no doubt the whole House and the nation recognise, that it is impossible to have an election at this particular moment. The black-out, the difficulty of holding meetings and of carrying on propaganda would make an election more or less a farce. Then, as the Minister said, there is the dead register. The register is completely out of date and the electors are scattered all over the country. I represent a small corner of London, a very overcrowded area, where people, normally, are accustomed to remain very much in their own homes and do not often leave their own district. Now, some of my electors are in Caithness, some in Wales, some in Orkney and a good number are even in Iceland. It is impossible for them to keep in contact with the political life of the country. Besides, I recognise that the nation wants to concentrate on the supreme purpose of winning the war and is conscious of the terrors which, by day and by night, threaten our great cities. We have to be realists. We have to recognise that a Bill of this kind is inevitable.
On the other hand, although it may sound like a contradiction of what I have already said, there is bound to be, sooner or later, criticism by the public of the fact that Parliament is prolonging its own life. Many people think that Members of Parliament have well-paid jobs and it will be said that in a Parliament in which we have already increased our own salaries, we are now voting ourselves additional security. There is also the fact, inevitable in the case of an old Parliament, that we are, to some extent, out of touch with the electorate. In normal times we have the healthy stimulus of by-elections. These mean that new Members who bring fresh minds to bear on our problems and who have been through contested elections come in here and bring


a breeze, as it were, from the democracy outside to stimulate us. They let us know what the public are thinking and we are always interested to hear the views of a newly elected Member. But under the truce, which we all accept, they now come in without the test of an election and without having had any contact with the electorate. They come in very often at the nomination of a caucus and they cannot claim to speak with any more authority or to be in any closer contact with the great public outside than the older Members of the House.
It is also argued with some reason that we are doing very little work. We do not meet very often and when we do meet it will be said, we have not very much to do. I agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) on the importance of what the House of Commons is doing. There are many vitally important committees at work and Members at Question Time do help to keep Ministers up to the mark. I attach great importance to the regular meetings of the House. But to the public outside, it appears that, as compared with normal times, there is no legislation, there are no Standing Committees and there is only routine work to be done. So, I say there is bound to be criticism of the fact that the House of Commons should, complacently, renew its own life for another year and that the Home Secretary should treat it as a matter to be dismissed in a few words. It is very difficult, apparently, under our Standing Orders to discuss, or to criticise, or to seek to justify by reason, what might almost be described as an unconstitutional procedure. I say that if we are to justify this extension of Parliament's life, we should be prepared to use the extra year in a profitable way and see whether we cannot do something to improve Parliament. Then people will understand. They will say "After all, Members of Parliament are doing their job like every one else and they are inquiring into the Parliamentary system."
In spite of the fact that this is a fight for democracy and for Parliamentary government there are critics of our machinery of government and of what is called our slow and clumsy method of legislation. I happened to be a member of the last war Parliament and I had

the great advantage of listening to the sonorous words of one who is, I fear, very much forgotten nowadays, the Prime Minister of that day, Mr. Asquith. He was a great Parliamentarian and a very wise leader, and he was Prime Minister at a time when it was found necessary to pass a Bill similar to that now before the House. I do not like quoting in the House but he put the matter so much better than I could put it that I think his words should again be recorded in the "Parliamentary Debates." He said:
With regard to the Parliament which is going to undertake the work of reconstruction after the war, it is eminently desirable that you should provide an electoral basis which will make that Parliament reflective and representative of the general opinion of the country, and give to its decisions a moral authority which you cannot obtain from what I may call a scratch, improvised, and make-shift electorate. Let us by all means use the time—those of us who are not absolutely absorbed in the conduct of the war—in these months to see if we cannot work out by general agreement some scheme under which, both as regards the electorate and the distribution of electoral power, a Parliament can be created at the end of the war capable and adequate for discharging these tasks and commanding the confidence of the country.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th August, 1916; col. 1906, Vol. 85.]
Those were wise words, and if they applied to that Parliament, they apply ten times more to the difficulties which will confront us when this war is over. Mr. Asquith as the Prime Minister of those days did a very wise thing. He was anxious to avoid political controversy and as most of us do when we are in a difficulty—that is go to you, Mr. Speaker, for help and advice—the Prime Minister of those days approached your predecessor and asked him to summon a conference.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Baronet spoke of approaching me when in a difficulty for advice, and I would point out to him that he is now going beyond my Ruling as regards the scope of this Debate. The conference to which he refers had some connection with the Bill which was introduced at that time, but it has no connection with the present Bill.

Sir P. Harris: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that what I said was said from the heart and I would not for a moment try to get round your Ruling. I will not pursue the subject therefore except to say that the precedent to which I refer is a


good one and if the present Prime Minister should approach you, Mr. Speaker as Mr. Asquith approached your predecessor I hope you will receive that approach with equal sympathy. If you decide to hold such a conference, I am sure that our Parliamentary institutions will be safe in your hands and in the hands of any conference which you summon. Under your Ruling I cannot go into the character or scope of such a conference, but if we are to pass this Bill, I think we have a responsibility not only to ourselves and the electorate of to-day but to future generations and to the great populace which looks to us for leadership. If ever there was a war of ideas it is this war. It is a war not between nations, not merely between countries and peoples but between Parliamentary government and democracy on the one hand, and dictatorship on the other. It does not seem unreasonable, therefore, that we as trustees of democracy and of our Parliamentary system should occupy the coming months inquiring into the whole machinery and organisation of government. I have quoted the words of a former Prime Minister of whom I was a great admirer. Equally I am an admirer of the present Prime Minister who follows in his footsteps both as an orator and as a believer in our Parliamentary system. In January, 1934, the present Prime Minister used these significant words:
We hear a great deal about the reform of the House of Lords. Surely both Houses of Parliament should be strengthened not only for constructive purposes but to enable them to resist the dangers of dictatorships. Those enormous political landslides which occur, now one way, now another, after some stunt election campaign, are harmful both to our trade and livelihood and to the House of Commons.
Now we have this confidence in our Prime Minister, and that is why we are giving this Bill such an easy passage. We know—we feel convinced—that his instincts are democratic and that we can safely trust him not to take advantage of any great wave of emotion to have another "khaki election," as it is sometimes called. After the last war, in 1918, we did have, as my hon. Friend has said, a stunt election. What was the result? An observer coming to the House shortly after that election said that the House of Commons gave an impression of being composed of hard-faced men who looked as if they had done well out

of the war. We do not want that. After all the sacrifices made not only by our soldiers, sailors, and airmen, but also by the civilian population, and after all they have to do and to suffer in the coming winter months, we do not want merely a recurrence of what happened in 1918.
I cannot elaborate what I would have liked to deal with—some of the ideas and theories I had at the back of my mind—but in passing this Bill, do not let the Government feel that they have fulfilled the whole of their responsibility. The House of Commons is satisfied that something should be done in the coming months to see that our Parliamentary system is strengthened by a full examination of the whole problem of Parliamentary government.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend who has made so eloquent a speech in the difficulties he has met with in examining the advisability of a redistribution of seats and the question of proportional representation. These are undoubtedly subjects of very great importance into which apparently it is not permissible to follow him. This Bill is no mere formality. It is, in fact, a revolutionary proposal. It is a proposal which, were it not for the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves, would rightly be regarded as an attempt by Parliament to usurp the prerogative of the people—the source and origin of all power in this realm—to select periodically the representatives of its choice. For the duration of this Measure which we are now discussing, the representatives of the people are not to be selected by the people. They are electing themselves. That, on the face of it, is a strange and paradoxical proposal. It is true that for some time past, by agreement between the party organisations, new Members of this House have been appointed not by, but to, a constituency, and the sole title deed which they have brought here has been the imprimatur of some party headquarters. They are in no sense chosen by those whom they purport to represent. This has undoubtedly been one of the causes of the decline of Parliamentary vitality, and I think it is a most regrettable pr0ocedure which, if the war continues, I hope will be revised.
In this Bill, however, we go still further. We ourselves assume the


functions of the elector. To-day, the 615 Members of Parliament sign their own nomination papers; there is no canvass, there are no addresses; there are no speeches advancing arguments for the consideration of the electorate; there are no polling booths. We constitute ourselves our own returning officers, and proudly announce our own election to a new Parliament. It is true that there are certain conveniences in this method. There are no election expenses, there are no lost deposits, and none of us is disappointed. All this, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps inevitable. At any rate we like to think so. But the whole point is that from the moment when this Bill becomes law this will be a new Parliament, a Parliament new in character if not in personnel.
If we have deprived the electorate, through force majeure, of its rights and opportunities, and have arrogated to ourselves a new authority, we ought in recompense to act in all respects as if we had been revitalised and refreshed, like any other new Parliament, by contact with the polls. No longer is it relevant for us to refer to our old mandate. That is out of date. We are giving ourselves another mandate, which is, presumably, to play our part conscientiously and wholeheartedly in the winning of the war, and to see that it is conducted thoroughly by every means. That is from now on our mandate.
It is perhaps difficult for us to rid ourselves of our old preconceptions and to recognise that not only is this becoming a new House of Commons but one which is operating under a different principle, a principle entirely different from that which prevailed when we were elected five years ago and under which this Parliament has lived the greater part of its life, which is now ebbing. When we first took our seats in this place there were a Government and an Opposition. That is the historic character of Parliament. The Government sits here, and the Opposition sits there. The Parliament which we are just closing attached a greater importance to Opposition—to Opposition, which has always been a feature of our Constitution—than any previous Parliament. It endowed the Leader of the Opposition with a formal status equivalent to that of a Minister, and paid him a corresponding salary.

My right hon. Friend has neither discharged the duty nor drawn the salary. It seemed to me that at the time when we elevated the right hon. Gentleman who sits in that place, whoever he may be from time to time, to so high a constitutional status we were making an effective critique of the totalitarian States. Whereas they suppressed criticism, we were giving it an important, and even a subsidised, place in the State. That is all gone. We still have a Front Opposition Bench; we have a right hon. Gentleman who goes through all the motions of the Leader of the Opposition. He asks questions about business; he follows the Prime Minister whenever he speaks, and says—if I may be pardoned for saying so—with inevitably less eloquence and with greater brevity, what the Prime Minister has already said. He goes through all the motions of the Leader of the Opposition; but he has by his side—and this is a strange development—one of the Government Whips, who keeps him under the most rigorous control. Why cannot we give him back his salary and have his function fully discharged? The right hon. Gentleman who occupies this position now gives an automatic approval to all the proposals of the Government. There is no Opposition as we have known it, and as we are entitled to know it, for the proper scrutiny of Measures in this House. This is a serious matter for the working of Parliament.

Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend explain, in the course of his most interesting speech, what there is to stop him or anybody else from constituting himself Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I was just coming to that point. I say that the absence of a right hon. Gentleman to discharge an historic function of Parliament in leading the Opposition is a serious matter for the working of Parliament and makes the deliberations of this Assembly less virile. It is another of the reasons why Parliament has degenerated in the public esteem.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the very facts that he has outlined mean that the Opposition is there in reserve should it be necessary at any time to utilise it?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think that they have a foot in each camp, and that that


is a disadvantage. I like to see both feet where they profess to be, discharging their functions. I am dealing with Parliament as a whole, and I hope that no hon. Member thinks that I am dealing with any particular party. I am saying that it is vital to have an Opposition. I hope hon. Members accept that, not as a partisan statement, but as a general view. I think however, that there may be advantages to be drawn from the present position. It is because Parliament has an Opposition as a recognised part of its structure that the Whips' Office has acquired a growing authority. As one part of the House is pitted against the other, all the supporters on either side have to be rallied. Under the system as we knew it, it was important for the Opposition to try to displace the Government, and it was equally important for the Government to remain in office. It had to be pointed out to wayward Members that if they gave expression to their views on some particular subject and carried their convictions, however strongly those convictions might be felt, into the Lobby, they risked defeating their own Government, in which case a General Election would ensue. That was the sanction behind the Whips' Office. That a General Election would ensue was a very important consideration, and it justified in many cases the disciplinary control of the Whips' Office. That explains how it has come about that the Whips' Office is the real repository of power in this country. The repository of power is not the electorate or the House of Commons, but the Whips' Office. At any rate, that was the case. But it can all be changed now, because, if we pass this Bill, there is henceforward no possibility of a General Election for the duration of the Act.

Mr. McKie: It merely extends the life of this Parliament for another year.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I agree. I said, "for the duration of this Act."

Mr. McKie: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that during the currency of the Act which prolonged the life of the last War Parliament, a General Election took place.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: This Bill is to extend the life of Parliament for another year. [Interruption.] Do not let us be

in any doubt that this Bill is to extend the life of Parliament, and that the life of Parliament will be extended throughout this war, for the reasons which have been given in support of the Bill. There is no fear of a General Election during this war—or, at any rate, for another year. This means that Members in the discharge of their conscientious feelings can without compunction give effect to their convictions on the conduct of the war. The Government can be changed without any fear of dissolution. We can, therefore, should the efficient prosecution of our cause require it, obtain a series of Governments throughout this war which will be more responsive than ever before to the will of this Assembly. It has recently been represented by the predominant party in this House that its members experience a lack of contact with and influence over the Executive. It is not a party which should have those privileges, but Parliament as a whole. Henceforward, this Government should not conform to purely party affiliations. As we have become the electorate, it becomes our duty to represent not merely a party or a section of the community, but the country as a whole. Parliament can thus acquire a real power, and make its contribution to the winning of the war more effectively than ever before, because the sanction of a General Election, which was held over its head, is now removed.
And we have so much to do towards the winning of this war. It is our bounden duty to reverse the abysmal series of disappointments which we are suffering. This Bill seems to me to be the real opportunity of Parliament. We say that we are fighting for Parliament; it is that which distinguishes our cause from that of our enemies. If that be so, it is important to make this institution effective—and that cannot be done if we confine ourselves, on the old party lines, merely to endorsing the Acts of the Executive. Recognising that we are not elected by parties or constituencies or majorities, but by ourselves, we can all the more frankly and fully express our views and the feeling of the nation generally. There is a sensitiveness to criticism in certain quarters—I think that that is most deplorable—but we should not be silenced. That, indeed, would be the ultimate frustration of Parliament. We say that we are fighting the war for democracy, which this House embodies.


Therefore, let us from now on make this Chamber work in a more actual sense. This Bill is our opportunity to merge our party loyalties, important as they are, into greater loyalties—loyalties to our country, to our history and to our liberties—and we shall afford a real dynamic example and impart a liberating hope if we can justify our professions of adherence to freedom and render practical our reiterated dedication to democracy.

Major Milner: In present circumstances it is, unfortunately, necessary to prolong the life of Parliament. I personally wish that it had not been so, for in my view, and no doubt in the opinion of many others, there is a great deal upon which the electors ought to have the opportunity of passing judgment. But before agreeing to this Bill, it is right and proper that we should survey the scene. Previous speakers have touched upon various aspects of it, and I think that possibly the great majority of us are in substantial agreement with a great deal of what has been said, especially as to the importance of the Constitutional aspect. I want to touch upon one or two other conditions and consequences which ought to be plainly stated at a time like this, with the leave of the House and of the Chair. I imagine that we shall all agree that the first essential of any action that we take to-day is that it should be plainly to help in winning the war. As has been said, this is not a war between nations; it is a war between different conceptions of life and between two systems of government—democracy and autocracy. In the last resort the value of either of these two systems must be judged by results, and I think we must frankly admit within these four walls that democracy has not so far in the war cut too good a figure.
There are some satisfactory features in our present situation, but there are many unsatisfactory ones upon which I could touch if the occasion were appropriate. One question which does arise is as to whether Parliament, which is the very cornerstone of the edifice of democracy, is really playing its full part in the present world-shaking events. I would be the last person in the world to cast any reflection upon this House. I need hardly say that I mean no disrespect either to

it or to Parliament, but we all know that while undoubtedly very great services are being rendered day by day and hour by hour by Parliament, we meet much less frequently than normally, and shall probably meet less frequently still in the future. We have our Questions, our Debates and our great occasions, and there are very valuable committees sitting, but it is the fact that at the moment this House is largely a mere instrument for registering the decisions of the Executive. It will also be agreed that it is difficult for it to be otherwise in war time and at a time when national unity is paramount. We are engaged in a war. I remember that one of the frequent interjections in this House made by the late hon. Member for Silvertown, Mr. J. Jones, was, "Is this a private quarrel, or can we all join in?" I think that that would not be an inappropriate comment to-day. One of the troubles of democracy is that there is not enough of it, and greater opportunities ought to be given to all, and not merely to some, voluntarily to take part actively in the affairs of the country.
This Bill, if it is to be a mere prolongation, and in that way involve the stabilisation, of our existing system, is surely purely negative; it contributes nothing positive to our war effort. Some suggestions have been made and I do not propose to repeat them but to advance one or two other suggestions of, I think, some constitutional and practical importance. In present circumstances the Government are a national government. They comprise all parties, and, in my submission, it is our plain duty to see that both the Government, and the House and its Members are made a living and vital element in our organisation, with every Member taking his full part in the national effort, leading, directing, participating or setting an example in all things and in all places. We must also bear in mind that had there been an election, it is extremely probable that many changes would have been effected. If we prolong this Parliament, and those changes not having been effected, we have to aim at maximum efficiency in everything, and I suggest that one of the considerations that the Government and Parliament ought to bear in mind should be not to hesitate to make those changes which it might be thought an election might have effected or solved.
We know that in the Government, and in many other positions of authority, we have capable leadership to-day. We have many that are masters at their job, but we also know that there are many others who are passengers and add nothing to our ideas, initiative or driving force, or it may be that they are rooted in tradition or in prejudice, with very little relation to the changed scene which is now before us. In the Government itself, notwithstanding the prolongation of Parliament, there ought not to be any question of party balance or any fixed proportion of parties in office ad infinitum, as in some quarters has been thought to be the intention up to the present. I do not myself know whether that is so or not. Then we must all admit that the back benchers in this House are very largely frustrated to-day. They have had few opportunities. They are told but little of what is going on, or of what is projected, and they are given no direct part to play in this momentous period in our history.
At some little risk of being misunderstood I want to point out that they are even barred by the continued operation of the Succession to the Crown Act, 1707, from the acceptance of work or duty under the Crown except in the Armed Forces, though there are scores of positions which Members of this House who are not otherwise fully employed could fill at least as well as those who are now appointed. There are some indeed in this House, as we know, who fill such positions. I am reminded—and I have not exchanged a word with either of the hon. Members on the subject—that quite recently the hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) was appointed to a most important position as one of the Commissioners in London, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) was also recently appointed to a most onerous duty in connection with salvage. Both these offices are presumably unpaid, and I imagine that had these Members not had the means to give their time and efforts in these positions, we should have lost their valuable services. The continuation of that Act deprives the country of the services of many who, on the ground of means, are unable to give their services voluntarily to the country.
I would like to make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend that consideration

might be given to the suspension, at any rate during the war, of that Act which has, indeed, in part, already been suspended in relation to Regional Commissioners and other offices. That would give every suitable man, not otherwise employed, the opportunity to play a more active part than is possible at present and to do so irrespective of his private means. In my submission, we should thereby set a standard for all, and the complacency and frustration which undoubtedly exist in some quarters would vanish. All would be taking an active part, and the resources of our country from one end to the other would be revitalised and extended by our example.
Something was said by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down with regard to the question of the "touchiness" of certain Members, presumably of the Government. I would like to make another suggestion, not quite on all fours with that, but I think it necessary that you should confide in people if you are to inspire confidence in them. That has not always been done in this House. No sensible Member desires to know the disposition of troops, the position of ships or the precise strategical or tactical intentions of the Higher Command, but the fact remains that from time to time we are fobbed off with all sorts of excuses which may be all very well in normal times of party Government, but are wholly inappropriate in the present circumstances, when we are all united in the common cause. There are Ministers and Government Departments who are willing to state the facts whether they are good or bad, but there are others, and I could give instances if challenged. I am much tempted to say in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Department over which he has recently come to preside is one of the worst offenders in this respect, and I hope and believe that he will effect an alteration. At present in that Department and some others everything is secret and nothing is disclosed, however small it may be, even to those who are as much concerned with the national interest as the Minister himself. There is no reason, as my right hon. Friend will admit at once, for this "mumbo jumbo" which simply creates division and doubt, nor is there any reason why Members should not be fully trusted.
It is a commonplace to say that we must win this war, but to do that we have to make democracy work, and it is still far from appreciated in some quarters that a much greater effort will be required to win the war. Nothing less than a complete mobilisation of our resources, men, material, brains and skill, with every man making an active contribution as a preliminary to the enlistment of Allies, whoever and wherever they may be, will suffice. It would be well if Members of Parliament would make a start and set an example by being given an opportunity to contribute their quota in the positions for which they are best fitted.
There is a number of other things I could say, but I would only add, in conclusion, that this Prolongation of Parliament Bill should not be used merely to stabilise the present position, but that with every recognition of all that the Government are doing in a situation of unparalleled difficulty the active co-operation of all, and not the least of Members of Parliament, should be sought, so that the nation may be in truth a nation in arms, and not only save herself and Europe by her example, but lay the foundations for the broader, happier, and more widespread civilisation of the future of which much is being said but little done.

Mr. McKie: I should not have ventured to intervene had it not been for the two speeches just delivered by the right hon. Members for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha). I am the only county Member of Parliament who has yet spoken in this Debate, and as a Scottish Conservative Member, representing a very large area, I should like to say this with regard to proportional representation and redistribution of constituencies—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will be out of order if he pursues that subject.

Mr. McKie: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and would only say that redistribution cuts both ways. The two speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen brought out many points of substance, but, I think, were rather strained. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport made very heavy weather with the fact that this was both a revolutionary

and unconstitutional proceeding. [Interruption.] I think that if their respective speeches are studied in the OFFICIAL REPORT, whenever it is published, they will be found to contain those words. At any rate, the right hon. Baronet used the word "revolutionary." The reason I think the speeches were overstrained is that the electorate as a whole does not view the Bill to which the House will shortly give a Second Reading in the same light as do both the right hon. Members. If the right hon. Member for Devonport will allow me to say so, I am continually in very close touch with my constituency, which is very large in area, although its electorate numbers only some 41,000. It does, however, contain a large number of Liberal electors, and I would like the House and the right hon. Gentleman to take that to heart.
I have not heard one suggestion—and I have discussed the matter with quite a few representative people—that this procedure is in any way unconstitutional or revolutionary. The right hon. Baronet appealed to the House to be realists; I say, Let us be realists, and let us also realise that at this time of grave national and Imperial danger the electors, as well, take a realistic view. Of course, there is bound to be criticism, but I do not think it is the kind of criticism which the right hon. Baronet suggested was to be heard in connection with the prolongation of this Parliament. Parliament takes this step because it is a regrettable necessity, and I hope the House will take that view. I cannot view this Bill as bringing in a new Parliament. There is no possibility of coming into direct contact with the electorate. The right hon. Member for Devonport regretted that we were not pursuing the normal course of by-elections, but it is certainly up to the electors in any constituency who think they are being deprived of their rights to pursue that course. In fact, I have in mind an interesting election in Scotland recently where the Scottish National Party candidate came forward and challenged the Government. The fact that in so very few constituencies that course has been pursued is not due merely to the dictates of the party caucuses but because the electors realise that it is impractical and impracticable to discuss questions of party politics. The one thing is to get on with this huge task. If we


bear that in mind as being their wish, we shall be well advised in a few minutes to give the Bill a Second reading.

Mr. Silverman: I am not quite clear that I follow my hon. Friend in his suggestion, but I cannot conceive any deadlier blow to the prestige of Parliament than that, at the very moment when we are prolonging our own existence without consulting the people, we should seek further powers to add to the emoluments which we should like to receive when rendering public service. Whether there are good or bad reasons in support of my hon. Friend's suggestion, I certainly do not think this would be a proper moment to consider them. On the other hand, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) that this is a revolutionary proposal. Unlike him, I dare say, I have no objection to revolutionary proposals provided only that I am satisfied, first, of their necessity in the interests of the nation as a whole and, secondly, that they can be carried through without causing more trouble than the trouble that they are designed to remove. This is a revolutionary Measure the necessity of which I suppose every one of us, if we were saddled with the responsibility of deciding whether it should be introduced or not, would have to admit, but I most emphatically deplore the method that has been adopted in presenting it to the House. I think it is inevitable that this House should at this moment deprive the people of the country of the constitutional right which, but for this Measure, they would have enjoyed of passing judgment on the work of the Parliament which was elected in 1935, but that it should be done in what I can only describe as a somewhat furtive, clandestine way, as though we were doing nothing which was in the least important, as though this was a mere formality which required no special justification and no special recommendation to the judgment of the people, seems to me to be a profound mistake to make in the middle of a most critical fight for the preservation of democracy in the world. [Interruption.] I know there are precedents for it, there are precedents for every evil thing in the world, but that does not prevent us from trying to remove them. Let us consider the cir-

cumstances in which this Parliament was elected, and where we now stand. The man who led the successful party—because it was a party and not a National Government—in the General Election of 1935 confessed at that Box that in order to achieve his victory he deliberately misled the people of the country. I am sure he thought it was necessary to take that course, but here we are at the end of the five years period for which this Parliament was elected by a kind of false pretence, and we have seen the result of the policy pursued by the then Prime Minister and his immediate successor.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member is now endeavouring to create an imaginary background for the Bill on issues on which I cannot allow debate.

Mr. Silverman: I do not seek to debate with the Chair, but I deprecate the use of the word "imaginary."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That was the wrong word for me to use. The election of five years ago and the issues thereof are not relevant to the Debate of to-day.

Mr. Silverman: I hope I can make the relevance of what I am saying perfectly clear to you, Sir, and to the House. I am criticising the prolongation of the life of Parliament and the way in which it is recommended to the House. The least that ought to have taken place was for the Prime Minister himself to review the work that Parliament has done during the past five years, to point to the results that have been achieved and to recommend, if he could, the virtues of this Parliament to the country on the basis of its record.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That would have been outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Silverman: He might have suggested what the policy was to be that the Government intended to pursue in the prolonged period of the life of Parliament. I do not think there would have been anything improper in that. On the contrary, I suggest that it would have been more appropriate to the important thing that we are doing. It would have been more appropriate to the importance of the occasion. It would have shown the country that we ourselves appreciate better the importance of what is being


done than to do it in this mere cursory way.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: These considerations are not relevant, and I must rule them out of order.

Mr. Silverman: The very last thing that I want to do on this important occasion is to have any kind of conflict with the Chair. A very important Measure has been recommended to the House in an extremely short and cursory speech. My point is that that was the wrong way to approach the matter, and I am giving reasons for that. I do not propose to discuss any of the matters to which I have referred. I should fully agree that this is not the occasion for that. I am only saying how very much better it would have been, in making a revolutionary proposal of this kind, to deal with the matter in a fuller way, to review the work that Parliament had done, to point in some way to the work that Parliament is going to be asked to do with the extra time that it was giving to its own life. I think, and the country will think, that if this House was being asked to do something which is in a sense extra constitutional, they were entitled to have from the Prime Minister himself fuller and better reasons than those which have been given, a fuller and better review of why this Parliament, with its record, should prolong its own life, a fuller and better explanation of what it proposed to do with the extra time it was voting to itself without any appeal to the country. It would have been a more dignified w ay of doing it, and it would have avoided the reproach that we were dealing with the constitutional liberties of the people in a lackadaisical kind of way. I am pot suggesting there need, or could, have been any different result, but I am suggesting that we ought to have been far more careful in avoiding the reproach that w e were taking this kind of thing as a matter of course, as if we had an absolute right at any moment or under any circumstances to prolong the life of any particular Parliament.
In that way, Hitler, in Germany, could claim, and claim with some justification, that he has preserved the forms of democracy in his seizure of power. He could say that he has a Reichstag elected by the people of Germany, that he

summons them at any time, and they agree with what he does and accept his policies, and that therefore he is as good a democrat as anybody. Many of us are very anxious indeed that we should not give the entirely false impression that we too are preserving the mere bones of democracy and paying lip service to its spirit and its life. I say that it was wrong for the Prime Minister to embark upon such a Measure as this without making some kind of formal review of the past and some kind of prognosis as to the future. He should have made some kind of statement to the people of this country to reassure them that we were not to become a mere rubber stamp, prolonging our own existence for the convenience of executive acts by the Government. I think the opportunity might well have been taken at this moment in the war to define our peace aims, what our ultimate aims are and what reward the common people of this country may expect for the devotion and heroism they are showing in every street and house in the country.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid the hon. Member is going beyond what is in order on this Bill. He is discussing the question of war aims and general policy. This Bill is very limited in its scope.

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear, although I did my best, but such are the limitations we all have. I do not propose for one moment to embark upon a discussion of war or peace aims, or any policy of the Government. That is not my point at all. I have no such idea in my mind. At the moment, when the life of Parliament is being prolonged without consulting the people, I was pointing out that the Prime Minister might be expected to state in this House what he would have been compelled to state to the country if an election had been held in the ordinary way.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the Prime Minister had been here to make that speech, he would have been out of order in making it, and therefore it is quite out of order for the hon. Member to make it.

Mr. Silverman: The Prime Minister could or ought to have engaged in a review of the whole series of questions I have indicated, but I venture to suggest that it is hypothetical because he did not attempt to do it, and no one knows therefore whether it would have been in order


or not. Indeed, if the Prime Minister had taken the opportunity afforded in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, and he had made a review of the past, I find it very difficult to believe that anyone would have found it out of order. I am certain that the House would have accepted it gladly, and that the country would have been equally glad to receive it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Chair is bound by Rules, and the hon. Member must not suggest that it is not.

Mr. Silverman: I was suggesting what the Speaker might have done if the Prime Minister had made the speech which he did not make. Therefore, it remains hypothetical.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Then there is no reason why the hon. Member should try to make the Prime Minister's speech for him.

Mr. Silverman: I am not trying to make the Prime Minister's speech for him, but I am entitled, as any other hon. Member is entitled, in Debate in this House to criticise omissions from speeches. It may be that my opinion is not shared either by the Chair or elsewhere, but that is irrelevant. I do say, and I say it because I think it right, that at a moment when we are doing something which many people believe to he revolutionary in its nature, it ought to be fortified, not by a mere few formal sentences, but by a speech made in accordance with the importance of the occasion. One of the things to which people's minds have been directed is the existing situation and its probable outcome if this House should grant the Government an extra length of life. I will not attempt to prolong the argument any further in support of my views. When the history of these days comes to be written, providing the right sort of people are still alive to write it, the regret which I feel will, I think, be shared. It will be felt that an opportunity was missed, that a mistake was made, and that something had been done in a mean and small and in a furtive and almost clandestine way which did not need that kind of procedure. The occasion could have been made the same kind of appeal as the Prime Minister would have had to make had he been

leading a Government composed of almost all parties in the House on the hustings in a General Election outside the House.

Mr. Gallacher: I oppose this Bill. Since the beginning of the war, stage by stage, every democratic right of the people of this country has been abrogated until we come to this Bill, when the people are completely cut off from anything which is going on. I know there are all kinds of terrific difficulties, but if next month the Prime Minister felt it desirable to go to the country, he would go to the country according to the statement which has been read out.

Mr. Denville: Oh, no.

Mr. Gallacher: If there was a desire to get the will of the people, these difficulties could be overcome. I heard it said that this Parliament was more popular now than it has ever been. Parliament may be popular, but I am certain that Members of Parliament are not so popular. When the Minister of Information was supporting his "snoopers" he told us that the reason for them was that Members of Parliament were completely out of touch with the people of the country. Most of the Members of the House are not representatives of the people and they make no attempt to carry forward the desires of the people.
It has been said that there is no feeling in the country for an election or any opposition to the Government. That shows that Members are not paying attention to what is happening in the country. There are big conferences, representing all kinds of organisations, passing resolutions against the Government and demanding an election. There are conferences and mass demonstrations demanding a people's Government, a different Government from the present Government. Last Sunday night in Glasgow the great St. Andrew's Hall could not hold the crowd which wanted to hear an hon. Member speak on the question of a people's Government. Two weeks ago the Free Trade Hall in Manchester was packed with an audience enthusiastically in support of a people's Government. The right hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) said that we were re-electing ourselves and giving ourselves a new mandate, and that, therefore, nothing should be said about


the old mandate. Before we give ourselves a new mandate, however, we should carry out our old mandate. I am not giving myself a new mandate and nobody else will give me one. I came here, as did other Members on all sides, with a mandate against the household means test. Has that been carried out?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot discuss the means test or the Government's record since the last election.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to make it clear that there is every reason why this Bill should not be passed and why we should go to the people because they want to abolish the means test.

Mr. Denville: Surely the hon. Member does not want a General Election in the midst of war.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Member take his mind back to the statement made by the Home Secretary informing us that, despite this Bill, the Prime Minister was holding to himself the power to have a Dissolution at any moment. Of course, a General Election would have a different character from any in the past, but I say that the opinion of the people should be taken and that we should test what the people think with regard to Members of the House and the Government. The people are against the means test, but it is carried on. They are against the Purchase Tax, but it is carried on. The people have no chance of speaking about these things. Are they not to be allowed to express themselves and to ask the Government to carry out what they desire?
One thing that demands that we should consult the people is the fact that nobody in the Government or around the Government has any perspective as to how this monstrous war is to be brought to an end. I go round the country all the time, and from the Lobbies of this House to the furthest part of the country the question that is being asked is, "How is all this going to end?" What is the answer? The Government are not prepared to give an answer. We are entitled to have a Government that will. Therefore, this Bill should not be passed and we should take, however difficult it may be, whatever measure is necessary for getting the opinions of the people on the important questions before the country, such as the

means test, the treatment of soldiers' dependants, the Purchase Tax, bomb-proof shelters, and how to bring the war to an end at the earliest possible moment with peace and freedom for the peoples of Europe.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Everyone who has spoken on this Bill has in different ways emphasised its serious nature. We may not think it revolutionary, but we must recognise that it is a Measure which can only be justified by very grievous national necessities. Even in these circumstances I should have been unwilling to see such a Bill passed were it not for the carefully worded statement which was read on behalf of the Cabinet by the Home Secretary in introducing the Bill. We are, in passing the Bill, taking the place of the electors who sent us here in prolonging our own life. We are insisting that we are trustees for them, and we are only justified in doing that in consequence of the national emergency and only justified if we use the interval that we have created by the artificial prolongation of the life of Parliament in a way that is worthy of the spirit of democracy. That is of immense importance. It has been said that the House of Commons has never stood higher in public opinion than to-day. Yet we have also heard voices expressing grave dissatisfaction at our unrepresentative character.
I believe that throughout the country there is a profound belief in the value of Parliament, and yet everywhere there is a knowledge that it might be far more representative than it actually is. It seems to me that we shall only justify this grave act if the interval which is so secured can be utilised to make Parliament even more representative, far more representative in future, than it is to-day. The promise of that is contained in the guarded statement that was read by the Home Secretary. I hope we may have an assurance from the Government that on some future occasion, not far distant, we may have an opportunity of a fuller explanation of the Government's mind on this subject and an opportunity of discussing it. I would like to recall in that connection some words that the Prime Minister spoke some years ago in this House:
It is our duty to strengthen the House of Commons. Parliament is all we have, and the House of Commons is the main part of


it. … Surely the care of this central instrument ought to he a sacred trust? Surely the building up of practical, trustworthy, living organs of government ought to be one of our chief cares?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1931; col. 109, Vol. 253.]
If we can in this interval, whether by a Speaker's Conference or by some other method, carry out the great object which the Prime Minister expressed so admirably in those words, we shall be worthy of our trust. An attempt was made during the last war, when the life of Parliament was prolonged, to get agreement on some of these questions, but it did not succeed. To-day we have a fuller sense of community than we had during the last war. Under the stress of national danger we can realise more fully the things we have in common, the great things which unite us, that are greater than the things that separate us; and if we could have a conference meeting in that atmosphere, I believe it would be possible to build for the future a structure which would endure and that would be worthy of the spirit of democracy which we endeavour to serve.

Sir Richard Acland: The right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) pointed out that our only justification for passing this Bill was our belief that the people of this country continue to give their confidence, to this House. I want to mention one very important thing which I think should be done by this House in order that that state of affairs should be retained, or perhaps I should say restored. The right hen. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) said that this House was giving itself a new mandate to win the war. Yes, but not only that, because by the very measures we take in war, and by our continued existence during the period of peace while the register is being revised, we shall be forming the character of the peace. I think, therefore, it is relevant for this House, which is renewing its life in war, to realise that in 13 months of war we have never once discussed the really great issues which lie underneath this war and how we hope they will develop in the future. I do not want to discuss that point, as I see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the action which you are about to take, but I want to point out that we really cannot go on without discussing it. Take that fine sentence at the end of the Prime Minister's speech:

Long live the forward march of the common people in all lands towards their just and true inheritance.
What does that mean? I am not going to say what it means, but if this House is to be sure that it is in touch with the electorate and is really united within itself it must discuss that question not just for one day but for several days. We shall not reach agreement in one day. We must come back to it again and again. I believe it is the question which more people in this country are asking themselves than any other. It is for lack of clear leadership on this question that I suggest that there is grave danger—I do not put it as high as grave danger, but a danger—of a spread of apathy and taking the edge off the enthusiasm of the people, which I am sure finds itself reflected in the meetings which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) finds himself addressing from time to time.

Mr. Gallacher: The meetings to which I referred at the Free Trade Hall and St. Andrew's Hall were not addressed by me. Another hon. Member of this House addressed the latter.

Sir R. Acland: Then I should substitute the friends of the hon. Member. We are united in the determination to fight, as the Prime Minister has said, for the maintenance of our existence. But behind that, what is to come afterwards? What are we going to do afterwards? Do we know, even in this House, what different Members think about it? Are we going on without ever discussing that point? Ought we not rather to find out to what extent we can agree? If we cannot agree, let us at least find that out in time, so as to know that we have to make an appeal to the electors to find out which of our various views truly represent what they think.
May I say one other thing, and I say it with the greatest diffidence, because I appreciate that it puts me very largely into an invidious position? May I make an appeal to the older Members of this House? If the House prolongs its existence in this way—and it is obviously foreshadowed that it will prolong it right through the war—for Heaven's sake restore to us in this House the younger Members of the Conservative party. It will be seen at once how this puts me


personally in a very invidious position. I know that I shall receive the hatred, the ridicule, the contempt of certain Members, if not of some Members—there are none of them here now—for having remained in this House. I quite understand that. I accept it. I respect their views. Perhaps they will respect mine, which is that a Member of Parliament is like any other citizen; if he is a pacifist he should appear before the tribunal at the proper time, and if he is not he should be called up at the proper time, and if the opinion of the House remains as it is at present that is what will happen to me.
But just consider what is happening. We are losing the services in this House of one of its most vital elements. The Prime Minister spoke to his own party of the need for continuity in our national life. All right. I will speak, and I do not believe anyone will challenge it, of the need for drastic changes in our national life which must be made by this Parliament, which is now renewing its life in war. I will not discuss them in detail. If we are to combine continuity in national life and the need for drastic changes, I maintain that there is no group of men who are so essential to this House as the younger members of the Conservatime party, who by their political origins, can stand for continuity and by their youth can stand for change. Therefore, I would appeal to the older Members, if we are to pass this Bill, that before we have to pass another Bill like this they should get the younger members of the Conservative party back into this House.
There is one circumstance which makes it possible to say this thing which would have made it impossible to say it even three months ago, namely, that from the point of view of danger there is not very much to choose between being in the Armed Forces and being a citizen who has to conduct his business from day to day in this town of ours. I therefore commend that point to the older Members of the House, as well as to the House as a whole, and I ask the Minister to convey it through the usual channels. If this House is to prolong its life from time to time as the war proceeds we must find out by earnest discussion—it would not require much of the Government, who

could leave it to the back benchers—what we mean by the rousing sentences of which the Prime Minister spoke.

Mr. David Adams: I venture to intervene in this Debate because a certain point of view has been put forward to-day which I think ought to be corrected. There is apt to be a feeling in the country, from the speeches which have been delivered, that, by extending its life, Parliament is in some way robbing the public of the rights of public controversy and removing from this Parliament questions which are of paramount importance to many of us. The question of peace and war aims has been mentioned as being, as it were, set on one side of the ambit of politics, but no such idea can exist in the mind of the Government. I feel it is necessary for the Government to correct any impression that, in some way, Parliament is using an extension of its authority and power for a further 12 months as a cloak to cover future political controversy in the country and in Parliament. There is no question of the unanimity of the nation and its confidence in the Prime Minister and in the Government, and in the great tasks to which they have primarily set themselves.
Nothing could be more outrageous than to suggest in times of peace that we should extend our life by a Parliamentary Bill, and there is a plausible argument that Parliament ought to consult the electorate at every opportunity; but a profoundly different situation prevails at present. What problem would we submit to the verdict of the ballot box if there were to be a General Election? Would it not be as to the continuation of the war or not? But Parliament is unanimous in that decision at the present time, and we could search every constituency and submit to it that question, assuming there was an obligatory appeal to the ballot box; the answer would be in favour of a continuation of this war, under the aegis of the present Government. In pursuit of that aim the country is resolved to make every sacrifice in order to carry on to victory, at any price which may be demanded of it. If this statement be incontrovertible, as it undoubtedly is, what justification could there be for making an appeal at the polls? One result of an election at the present time would be a diversion of the interest of the nation from the prime purpose to


which the nation and Parliament are committed. For that reason, it is imperiously necessary that nothing should impede the nation's will to victory, and that we give unanimous support to the Bill.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but, in view of the number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, it will perhaps be appropriate that there should be a short speech from this Box. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been criticised on the ground of the brevity of his speech. One seldom hears that criticism of a speech. I am reminded that one wise old hand is said to have advised a young speaker that no one has ever complained of a speech being too short. My right hon. Friend made clear what is plain on the face of it, that this is a serious Bill, affecting what we call our Constitutional structure, but he assumed—and every speech I think, except one, has entirely justified his assumption—that it would be agreed on all sides of the House that a General Election is impracticable at present and that the Bill is inevitable. In addition to the argument as to impracticability, we have listened to a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams), who gave other reasons why a General Election would be futile in one sense and possibly dangerous to our national effort. It is, therefore, true to say that the Bill, which is simple in what it proposes to do, and which has a precedent in the last war, is one which the House and the country recognise as necessary and inevitable. I hope, therefore, that we shall give it a unanimous Second Reading.
During the Debate a number of speeches have been made in what, without disrespect to the Chair, I might describe as the penumbra of Order. They have made a number of suggestions, some of which were exhortations to Members of the House rather than to the Government. There have been suggestions to the Government. In the speech of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) there were exhortations to the older Conservative Members regarding the usefulness of the younger Conservative Members of this House. We also had a speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), who analysed the situation, as

he thought it arose as a result of the Bill. While he lamented, so far as I could gather, the disappearance of the Leader of the official Opposition, he found some comfort in what he regarded as the diminished powers of the Whips' Office, and gave his suggestions as to how he thought Parliament might work in the new situation. I neither want, nor would it be tolerable, to make a general survey at this moment of all those suggestions. They are all matters which those to whom they were addressed can consider. I am sure that, if they be in order, the House will wish, when it so desires, to make a survey of them. I think we must all agree that it should be the constant endeavour of all who sit on this and on other benches individually and collectively to do their best to see that Parliament works with the maximum efficiency and national usefulness at all times, and in particular these times in which we now find ourselves.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for the next Sitting day.—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the British Gas Light Company, Limited, a copy of which was presented on 17th September and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Ennerdale Rural District Council, a copy of which was presented to this House on 17th September and published, he approved."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Orders of the Day — EXIT PERMITS (Mr. H. G. WELLS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Earl Winterton: I desire to raise a question of which I gave notice the other day at Question Time, and that is the reason for granting


an exit permit to Mr. H. G. Wells to leave this country in order to carry on a lecture tour in America. There has been a certain amount of reference to this matter in the Press and outside this House, and there seems to be some difference of opinion concerning the reasons which have led me to raise this matter, in debate, and also concerning the answer which the Under-Secretary gave the other day. I therefore want to make clear at the outset that I am not concerned with the wrongness or rightness of Mr. Wells' views. I do not seek to have him muzzled here. In fact, it would be out of order to raise a Debate in this House on the views, whether written or spoken, of any member of the public, unless one could relate it to some alleged breach of the law, which I do not for one moment allege in the present case. He can say and write what he likes in this country so far as concerns the law, which even in war-time is more lenient than any of Mr. Wells' views and, incidentally, far more than Fascism permits.
He has in fact for years past suggested or said openly that the Throne is a medieval and useless institution, the Christian religion a senseless, Judaic superstition, and the whole structure of society rotten. I have by me—I do not know whether it is necessary for me to quote in order to show that I am not biased in what may be described as my right views—very wounding, injurious and utterly untrue statements that he has made about my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends who sit here. I believe him to be wrong in all these three particulars, in his views upon the Throne, upon the Christian religion and upon people. But they do not injure the great reinforced concrete of our national life and outlook in the slightest degree. They probably do not even injure Mr. Wells' position as a novelist. People read his novels, some of which will have a permanent place for hundreds of years to come in our literature—though they read them, so I am informed by those in the book trade, in decreasing numbers—without being in the least enamoured of the author's personality and policy in other fields than novel writing. It is obvious that Mr. Wells himself realises this fact, for more and more he

has transferred his attacks on our religion and constitution to foreign newspapers. In fact, for years past Mr. Wells has been saying to the British public in effect, "You will always be fools and I shall never be a gentleman," and the public laughingly and good-humouredly acquiesces.
I am not complaining of any of those matters which Mr. Wells says are for home consumption in this country. What I am solely concerned about is the wisdom of granting such a man an exit permit in the certain knowledge that he will use all the publicity and power which he possesses to denigrate his country abroad and, of all places, in the United States, where in the hour of our greatest peril we enjoy more real sympathy with our unity and moral strength than ever before in our history. Let me proceed quite shortly, because I do not wish to detain the House unduly, to give my reasons for that view. Mr. Wells, as I have already said, is a Republican and an agnostic. It is the fact that an English Republican is no more popular in the United States than an American Royalist would be in that country. Speaking as one who has paid many visits to America in an official capacity as a representative of His Majesty's Government and for private reasons, I must emphasise that people who wish to destroy Constitutions are the objects of particular suspicion and dislike in that country. You cannot do greater harm to a public man in the United States than to accuse him of possessing subversive ideas. To suggest at an election that a man wishes to destroy the Constitution of his country is to brand him as a person who would not be elected. And yet an exit permit is granted to that rara avis, an English Republican, who prides himself on being a Republican in this country.
Then we come to Mr. Wells' peculiar and particular attitude towards what is, after all, the accepted faith of millions of people throughout the world and not least in the United States. The Christian religion is still a very powerful factor in the United States, and avowed opponents of Christianity get short shrift at the hands of the electors if they put up for any public office. Perhaps a personal reminiscence may be pardoned. In support of my case in regard to religious feeling in America, I should like to men-


tion that I was present last autumn at a luncheon given to the inter-Governmental Committee in the United States, who assembled for a conference at which I represented the British Government. There were present at that luncheon the Roman Catholic Archbishop of the Eastern States, the Mayor of New York—himself an avowed Catholic—representatives and heads of the Episcopalian Church, the Methodist Church and the Jewish community. Throughout the very eloquent speeches which were made by several of those gentlemen, I was struck by the fact that there ran as strong, if not stronger than anything which one finds in this country, a feeling of the essential unity of all religions in regard to certain matters, such as their dislike of the Nazis. Yet we allow to go to the United States as representative of Britain and British literature a man who prides himself on being an opponent of all religion, who says there is no such thing, or that it is a medieval superstitution.
There is another reason why I think he should not have gone to the United States. Why allow this very unrepresentative human export to go to a country where there is no demand for his particular views? We talk of making credit for ourselves in the financial sense by an export of goods, and indeed that is essential if we are to win this war. What moral credit—and I say this to anyone who is prepared to get up and support Mr. Wells in this Debate, as I think the hon. Gentleman apparently is—

Mr. Mander: Perhaps my right hon. Friend had better wait, hear and see.

Earl Winterton: I put this question to him: what moral credit, I say, do we obtain for this country in a country like the United States, where the question of our moral credit is very important to us? What moral credit is being gained by sending Mr. Wells there as a representative of British literature and thought? I say that our real ambassadors of good will to the United States are the thousand children who went there, and every one of those children is more representative of Britain and is a better ambassador than Mr. H. G. Wells. Mr. Wells is reported, soon after his arrival in the United States, to have given an interview or a series of interviews. He made a number of wounding remarks about a

number of politicians. I am not concerned with that. I am not concerned with his attacks either on my hon. or right hon. Friends on the bench beside me. He referred to them as sly, second-rate politicians who make ambiguous, non-committal speeches, so that if this war-aims idea should presently prove a winner they could claim to have said it all along. That is his reference to the Members of the Labour party in and out of the Government in his latest effusion in the "Weekly Dispatch." Nor am I concerned with his astonishing reference to Lord Halifax as the quintessence of everything that an Englishman should not be.
But Mr. Wells goes further than that. He is alleged, according to the Press, to have stated that an officer who still holds a very high appointment in this country, General Ironside—of whose qualities many Members of this House, including my right hon. Friend below the Gangway opposite and others outside it, are well aware—is a model of incompetence.

Mr. Gallacher: Hear, hear.

Earl Winterton: It is very notable that the only support for such a statement comes from the only Communist Member of this House. He thinks everybody that is doing work like General Ironside a model of incompetence. He then referred to Lord Gort as our "praying general." I am not concerned with his abuse of the Foreign Secretary or of other politicians. I am willing to make allowances for the peculiar and particular form of Mr. Wells' social inferiority complex. But I should like to examine for a moment, because it buttresses my case, what his reason was for this particular reference to Lord Gort as a "praying general." Why should he attack a man with a tremendous record of gallantry and leadership in the last war, no staff soldier, but a man who, I think, served in the trenches for the whole of that war and won the V.C. there, a man who extricated a small force under him from an impossible position caused by the defection of our Allies in this war in a manner which will earn the admiration of military historians for all time? Why does he attack him as a "praying general"? The reason is obvious. It is not because he has any particular feeling against Lord Gort as a soldier. It is not because Mr. Wells knows anything' about military matters. He has


never, so far as I know, been within 100 miles of the real firing line in his life, and there is no reason why he should have been. It is obvious that the fact that Lord Gort is a V.C. and a great leader of many battles matters nothing to Mr. Wells.
Lord Gort's offence in Mr. Wells' eyes is that he dares to confess himself to be a Christian, to belong to that so-called outworn creed which Mr. Wells so detests and which he is exercising his puny efforts in his declining years to attack with the greatest vituperation. Lord Gort, V.C., is a very easy target for Mr. Wells. Such a gallant man is an easy target for this representative of British literature, because Mr. Wells knows perfectly well that Lord Gort, as a serving soldier, cannot answer this kind of attack and has to remain silent. He therefore travels about America referring to a man who has earned the admiration of our country as a "praying general." I am glad to see that in the United States, where there is a freedom of discussion similar to that which we have here, a great number of our best friends—including some men holding a high position in public life—have publicly protested against Mr. Wells' attacks upon his own fellow countrymen and against his efforts to attack people merely because they happen to hold opinions in which he does not believe. I say that these references to Lord Gort—indeed, to General Ironside also—are in the circumstances something unworthy of Mr. Wells' position. I happen to be an extensive reader, probably like others of my hon. Friends, of Addison, Steele, Gay, Pope, and other eighteenth century essayists, and I can imagine one of them saying of this statement by Mr. Wells about Lord Gort, "Sir, these are indecent words; nay, they are worse—they are blackguardly." Indeed, one wonders if any man of Mr. Wells' former reputation would indulge in such silly, offensive abuse if he were still in the full plentitude of his mental powers.

Mr. Lawson: He is not. He is in his dotage.

Earl Winterton: Well, he may be; I hope that that is the reason for his remarks. There is another and more sinister explanation of Mr. Wells' talk in

his visit to America. Now France was not only betrayed by her Lavals and other traitors of the Right or by the Communists on the Left, although both of them had a great deal to do with her betrayal. There was another class of Sixth Columnists in France who for years have tried to shake the faith of Frenchmen in all the spiritual and material institutions of France. These men said, I have heard it stated, "Fancy making So-and-so a general—why, he is a Christian. How can a Christian be a good soldier?" And, "How silly for a thing like a Republic, with all the faults of democracy, to fight a war against people like the Germans." These men, like Mr. Wells, professed hatred of Nazism, but every one of them opposed and insulted their fellow countrymen as Mr. Wells did.
Mr. Wells would like us to think that he was the real enemy of Hitler and the man whom Hitler feared. I should imagine that if Hitler had an enemy in the world he need not worry about, it is Mr. H. G. Wells. Like Mr. Wells, those men believed in nothing and nobody, they owed allegiance neither to God nor to man. They were not necessarily bad men; they may have believed in some vague Utopia of the future. But the Third Republic meant as little to them as, by his own confession, the British Empire means to Mr. Wells. Hence they helped to defeat it. I say it is dangerous to allow men of that kind to go to America. We know that in this House we can express our views openly about these Sixth Columnists, about those who are professing hatred of Nazism but who are shaking faith in every statesman on both sides of the House, thereby helping Hitler. I am not referring to any hon. Member or right hon. Member in this House. I have heard no speech in this House which comes into this category. I am referring to people outside, including at least one well-known broadcaster. They need watching, and they will be watched.
In this House and outside, there are millions of Britons—of whom, I am proud to say, I am one—who, irrespective of class and creed, have, in the seven seas, in battles on land, and in air fights, fought for Britain. Mr. Wells has never been asked to risk his life for Britain. I do not suggest that he went to America deliberately to avoid bombing—because


the sea is more dangerous than the land. He went to represent British literature. But there are at least a dozen men who have given their sons for Britain's cause who are more representative than he of British writers. I can think of many more representative writers. There is Sir Hugh Walpole, there is the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert), there is Mr. J. B. Priestley—I do not often agree with Mr. Priestley's views, but he is more representative of a generation that has fought for Britain. The "News Chronicle" attacked the Under-Secretary in one of its leading articles. It was furious that any one should have attacked its little pet, H. G. Wells. I should have thought that even the "News Chronicle" would have realised that his news value was not so great as it was 30 years ago. I was then editor of a weekly journal, and I remember how we fought to get him to write. I have yet to learn that any journalist is particularly anxious to get Mr. Wells to write for him now. The "News Chronicle" attacked the Under-Secretary because he said that
the general policy is to permit elderly persons and others who can render no useful assistance to the war effort to proceed overseas "[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th October, 1940; col. 682, Vol. 365.]
I accept that statement as it stands, but there is a corollary to it: that is, that an elderly person in the same category as Mr. Wells, while not capable of doing much harm in this country, may do vast harm when he is sent overseas to represent this country. Let him say what he likes here, but it is intolerable that this agnostic Republican, with his hatred of things upon which nine-tenths of his fellow countrymen place great store, should be permitted to lecture in the United States at the present time. I hope that these words will go out through you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, from the House of Commons, to be repeated to our friends in America, who number nearly 130,000,000. I do not care what the British Press say about Mr. Wells, whether they support him or oppose him; but I am interested in what these 130,000,000 think in the United States. They need to have some true picture of this man, who, in the hour of our greatest need, when there is necessity for everybody to forget peace-time political feelings and stand solidly behind the Government of this country, dares to go overseas and attack some of

the institutions which have made this country great, and who falsely represents his fellow-countrymen.
While it is too late to withdraw his permit, I hope that the effect of this matter being raised in this House will be to reduce the number of people—and I do not think that that number is very great in any case—who pay the slightest attention to what Mr. Wells says in the United States. I think that the effect of this Debate will be to open the minds of the great American public to the true character of Mr. Wells, so that he will not be accepted as a true representative of this country. I do not think that anyone has any right to speak for the people of this country unless he has behind him the overwhelming support of this country, which is given to all men of good will who are prepared to stand up for our rights.

Mr. Shinwell: Although hon. Members may occasionally differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), we all respect him as an old and active Parliamentarian. But that is, in itself, a substantial reason why we should deplore the speech that he has just delivered. It is, in my judgment, a great pity that my hon. Friend should have used so much eloquence, and, I may add, so much vituperation, on so poor a case. I wondered, certainly in respect of some of his passages, whether we were in the Mother of Parliaments. It seemed to me that the speech was more fitted to the Reichstag. My right hon. Friend asked a question. It was, "What moral credit do we obtain for our country by Mr. Wells's speeches and presence in the United States?" I would ask, what moral credit do we obtain from the kind of speech that my right hon. Friend has just delivered? He made some reference to animadversions from Mr. Wells regarding the Labour party. Mr. Wells has frequently attacked the Labour party, but so has my right hon. Friend. Surely that is no reason why we should complain about Mr. Wells lecturing in America.

Earl Winterton: I am reluctant to interrupt, especially in view of the courteous references which my hon. Friend has made to myself, but I specifically made it clear that I was not objecting to Mr. Wells having been


granted an exit permit because of anything that he had said about politicians in this country. What I objected to were his indecent references to men holding public positions in this country who were not in a position to reply.

Mr. Shinwell: Indeed, I find it very hard to agree with the suggestion that one may be permitted to make the kind of speech that Mr. Wells makes in this country, but not to do so abroad. It seems to me that if one is not to be permitted to make a speech elsewhere among friends, one ought not to be permitted to make it here, but my Noble Friend must solve that matter for himself. Let us come to the substance of the matter before the House. I am not concerned about Mr. H. G. Wells. I have attacked Mr. H. G. Wells frequently and in his presence and he has not liked me, but I am concerned about liberty and the preservation of such liberty as we possess.

Sir Patrick Hannon: What about licence?

Mr. Shinwell: My hon. Friend opposite is perhaps more concerned about licence than I am. I am certainly not concerned about licence, but there must be restraint in all things. I claim that we on these benches have exercised perhaps more restraint than was necessary having regard to the social conditions which our people have endured.

Sir P. Hannon: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that we are not discussing social conditions in this country? The point raised by my Noble Friend is that of a dangerous and poisonous speech in a friendly country, the loyalty and friendship of which at this moment are of great consequence to us in winning the war.

Mr. Shinwell: If there is no relevance it is because the hon. Member will interrupt. Since he has interrupted and raised the point, let me say that it may well be that we are not discussing social conditions in this country at this time, but, on the other hand, it may well be that, if hon. Members on this side of the House raised social conditions in an acute form, we might come under the lash just as Mr. H. G. Wells has done. I want to ask a question also. What is it we are fighting for? Is it liberty and the freedom of democracy and the right

to express oneself, or is it not? There is no halfway house. Halfway houses lead to Fascism. It is one thing or the other, either the right to express what comes into our minds—although many may think it all wrong—or to be compelled to retain in our minds that to which we should like to give expression if we were permitted. That is the issue. We are fighting for liberty, and neither my Noble Friend nor any other hon. Member in this House has the right to preclude the expression of opinions by. Mr. H. G. Wells or anybody else.
It may be argued—and this; after all, is the substance of the case of my Noble Friend, stripped of its eloquence and perhaps some little verbiage—that his presence and speeches in the United States of America are not a contribution to our cause. Let us see what is the case. It is that Mr. H. G. Wells preaches agnosticism? After all, there are many agnostics in this House, and I presume, in the United States of America. But I do not want to go into that too deeply. Mr. H. G. Wells preaches republicanism, and there is no crime against preaching republicanism in the United States of America. I cannot imagine that any of the millions of people who are our friends—and there are many of our friends in the United States of America—would lose faith in our cause by the knowledge that Mr. Wells, in a republican country, was preaching republicanism. My Noble Friend has raised what I think is a false issue; he has raised the question of religion.

Mr. Magnay: It was the comment of Mr. Wells. He raised the question of religion.

Mr. Shinwell: I think that I am within the recollection of the House when I say that my Noble Friend raised the question of Mr. Wells' views on religion, but I will take my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) on his own ground. Let us assume that that is the gravamen of the case against Mr. H. G. Wells, and that he described Lord Gort as a praying general. Is he not a praying general, just as my hon. Friend is a praying politician? Would not my hon. Friend be the last to complain if he were so described? If it were said that my hon. Friend went down on his knees every morning and night and prayed, that he was a praying politician who held


firm and fast to his beliefs, would he complain? It may be that Mr. H. G. Wells was indulging in a little sarcasm. There are even worse things said of Lord Gort in this country. After all, the worst thing that could be done about Lord Gort was to replace him in the command by someone else. But once we get on to that slippery slope Heaven knows where we are going to end.
It appears to me that the real substance of my Noble Friend's case amounts to the fact that he is prejudiced against Mr. H. G. Wells, and many of us are. What Mr. Wells has said has not always turned out in accordance with facts, and therefore, I would advise my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department not to take this matter too seriously. He has his chance. He can leave Mr. H. G. Wells where he is with Gracie Fields, Monty Banks and Noel Coward. I think that an hon. Member of this House found Hollywood more salubrious than Westminster, and they all received exit permits. It is true that none of them has made the same kind of speeches as Mr. Wells. They were too busy in Hollywood and in those intimate circles, about which the least said the soonest mended. My hon. Friend can either leave Mr. Wells there to make his speeches and to fulminate against praying generals and incompetent politicians—and that there are incompetent politicians even in the Government I am sure my Noble Friend would at least agree, but it is not an appropriate moment to discuss that issue, however tempting it may be—or bring Mr. Wells home. I was going to say that he might be placed in a concentration camp, which would please all those who were not agnostics or republicans.
On the subject of religion I speak as a novice, but it occurred to me, when the Noble Lord was asking about the fight for Christianity, that that sort of thing might not go clown so well in Turkey and Egypt. What are we fighting for? Not for Christianity, for which we have the highest regard whatever our views, but for liberty which we see slipping away from us day by day. I would say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, whose benign countenance so often faces us, that even he, with his surreptitious reactionary tendencies, should be mighty careful. Let Mr. H. G. Wells talk, let the Noel

Cowards coquette and let the Gracie Fields show their graces. Let them play about as they care; we have a war on in this country and the less we are concerned about the fulminations, rhetoric and activities of other people, thousands of miles away, the better it will be. Let me say in all sincerity that we have to win this war and it is no light task. It does not depend upon speeches made in the United States. The winning of this war depends on resolution. I do not see the organisation I should like to see. I think the resolution is there but it will not last, unless organisation fortifies it. Let us not make fools of ourselves, even if Mr. H. G. Wells does.

Sir Patrick Hannon: We have listened to a very subtle, thoughtful and stimulating speech by the hon. Gentleman opposite, but I would like to say to him that we in this House ought to know whether there is some governing principle for sending overseas, to friendly countries, people who take such an attitude towards the war and the machinery we have in order to carry it through to victory? Do we indiscriminately appoint persons of the eccentricity of Mr. Wells, notwithstanding his vast knowledge, to places like the United States—the last place in the world where one ought to make speeches denouncing public persons in this country who have been so intimately associated with the process of the war. The hon. Gentleman who just sat down said that speeches made in the United States will not affect the result of this war, but it seems to me profoundly important that those who go to the United States and profess to represent public opinion in this country should speak decently of the public men associated with our war effort. Mr. Wells's denunciation of Lord Gort in such sarcastic and poisonous terms is something which I hope will not be repeated by others who may go overseas. Are we financing people of his kind who go overseas and talk about our leaders in this way? If people wish to go on their own account I do not think anybody could complain—

Mr. Shinwell: Is he financed?

Sir P. Hannon: Am I to understand that he has been paid his expenses by His Majesty's Government?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I had better make the point quite clear. The grant of an exit permit does not give any sort of official standing to the person to whom it is granted.

Mr. Broad: Are there no financial provisions?

Mr. Peake: I have no special knowledge of Mr. H. G. Wells's financial arrangements except that it is perfectly clear that he is being reasonably well-paid in dollars but certainly not by the Government.

Mr. Magnay: If a permit makes it possible to go to America and lecture there, it makes it possible for Mr. Wells to earn money he otherwise would not get.

Sir P. Hannon: I think the charge that my Noble Friend was making was that Mr. Wells received a permit to leave this country.

Earl Winterton: I will make the point clear. My complaint is a very simple one and it is that exit permits are being refused to a great number of people because—let us be frank—the Government do not think them suitable to go overseas and speak about this country. My complaint is that the exit permit given to Mr. Wells was used so that he could denigrate his own country and the leaders in it.

Sir P. Hannon: The Foreign Office ought to take into consideration every fact before a permit is given. What are the considerations which effect the issue of permits of this kind to go abroad? That is the real essence of the Debate this afternoon and I hope we may have a clear explanation from the Under-Secretary. I think it is deplorable that in these times we should have the hon. Gentleman opposite expressing opinions of that kind about the United States. Every means is being employed to cultivate a better understanding with the United States and that work, I am glad to say, is going ahead. I think it is deplorable that a full measure of licence, which the hon. Gentleman opposite would give to anyone to go to the United States, should be given to a person who speaks in such terms and gives a false estimate of public opinion in this country.

Mr. Mander: I am sure that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) in bringing forward this matter to-day was actuated by the highest motives and public interest in the really savage and aggressive attack he has made on Mr. H. G. Wells, but I cannot help wondering whether he has, in fact, rendered a public service in doing so. Certainly he has given Mr. H. G. Wells magnificent publicity in calling attention to certain remarks he made which otherwise many probably would never have read. I cannot help thinking that we have shown a certain lack of balance in this House today in the atmosphere of excitement in the Noble Member's speech on this particular episode. It all arises from the question of exit permits and I would like to ask the Under-Secretary what is the policy of the Government on that matter? As I understand it, the practice at the present time is to say to anyone before he or she goes abroad, "Will you give an undertaking not to say anything which will affect the war effort of this country?" That is a new practice and it seems to me dangerous. Does it mean that no one is allowed to go to the United States who will criticise the Government, or any Members of the Government? I should have thought it entirely wrong to put any prohibition on a British subject going to the United States and saying what he liked about the British Government.

Earl Winterton: Would the hon. Member allow Fascists out of prison and send them to the United States?

Mr. Mander: If there are Fascists who are dangerous to the country, and they have been wrongly let out, they ought to be locked up. Suppose the Noble Lord had been himself in the United States early in May, or perhaps April, and some journalist had asked him for his views about the late British Government, for example, did he consider the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) the statesman best fitted to lead the country to victory, the Noble Lord would have been in a very embarrassing position. He could hardly have said "Yes." We all know how strongly he opposed the late Government and assisted, rightly, to throw them out of office.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Member could not have listened to my speech. Of course, any British subject is at liberty to criticise the Government of the country, but he should not be allowed at a time of national calamity to attack the Throne, the religion and the whole constitution of the country.

Mr. Mander: I understand that the Noble Lord does not really object to the implied criticism of the Foreign Secretary. I do not associate myself with what Mr. Wells said for a moment. I am not concerned with what he said and I must not be taken as agreeing at all with any remarks that he made then. At the same time, we must bear in mind that, whatever we may think of Mr. Wells, and whatever views he may hold, he is a very great Englishman. Whether you agree with him or not, his creative brain-power has made the name of the country famous throughout the world. I am not talking about his political views. I am talking about the books that he has written, which have been the admiration of people throughout the world for the last 40 or 50 years. It has nothing to do with politics or controversy. It is the intellectual genius of one man. He is a great Englishman.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is not the hon. Member failing to distinguish between brain-power and logrolling?

Mr. Mander: I do not think that is the view of the great majority of mankind, though it may be the hon. Member's view. It is only fair to Mr. Wells to call attention to certain other things that he has said. In an article in the "News Chronicle," for which the Noble Lord has such a great dislike, though I think it is a good journal, Mr. Wells made this remark:
Essentially Britain is one in this war—solidly one. It faces the world confident in its high ideals, battling not only for itself but for the freedom, liberty and the happiness of all mankind.
May I quote another passage from "Reynolds" in May, 1939:
Mr. Winston Churchill is a man of great imagination, enterprise and resolution, and there can be no question of the invigorating effect his accession to the Premiership will have upon the whole nation.

I think the Noble Lord would agree wholeheartedly in that.
The lurking and demoralising dread of irresolution in high places is lifted.
Again the Noble Lord will agree.
We know now that the war will be fought hard, obstinately and intelligently, and that the British peoples need no longer glance apprehensively backward when they should be facing their enemies and the world with a single mind.
Again the Noble Lord would applaud if he felt inclined to. It would be embarrassing to do so, but I know that mentally he is applauding.
It not only displays the new captain's inspiring persuasiveness but also his courage that he has been able to assemble so diversified a crew to man the ship under his command.
It is only fair that we should remember that, in spite of these, as I think, unfortunate remarks which were made in the United States, Mr. Wells has also given expression to views such as these, which carry with them the wholehearted approbation of the people of the nation. It is only fair that we should keep some sense of proportion and balance. Remember what this man's life history has meant in many respects to the name of the country in the world, and the views which he has expressed with regard to the great struggle in which we are engaged, where he stands shoulder to shoulder with the rest of us.

Mr. Magnay: I wish to express my approbation of the Noble Lord bringing this subject before the House. I resent very much indeed Mr. Wells, or anyone else, going from this country and saying the things he has said. I should say the same of anyone else who went to America, to those who are friends of ours in this time of war and in the same circumstances. I stand, as everyone else in the House stands, for liberty, but, though things may be lawful, they may not be expedient. Circumstances do alter cases. I agree with what has been said about Mr. Wells' wonderful ability and brain-power, but in my opinion that makes the offence greater. The greater the gifts the greater the offence. He ought to have had more sense than to go to a friendly country in a time of extremity, not only for ourselves but for the liberty that we are fighting for throughout the world, and to say such things. He ought not to have been under suspicion of saying anything


which could be construed as derogatory to the fighting power of our country. I resent very much his talking as he did about Viscount Gort. I do not know Viscount Gort. He is, like myself, a North Countryman. We do not need anyone to help us. We breed men and not boys up North and we can take care of ourselves. But when Mr. Wells talked about Viscount Gort in terms of derision as a praying general, I resent very much that a leader in the Army of this Christian country should be scoffed at.
We all owe, as this gentleman owes, our life and being to the Lord of Hosts. But this is not the first time we have been indebted to a praying general. When I was a boy there was a man called Gordon, and he was a praying general, and there was a man in my grandfather's time called Havelock, and he was a praying general. In the last war, when our very lives were at hazard, we had a praying general in Foch. All this talk comes from an agnostic who is going past his best in his dotage. [Interruption.] Why should I not say that, when this man says certain things about Viscount Gort, knowing quite well he cannot reply as a serving officer? The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said America was a long way off. But this world is a whispering gallery. I know men who have heard with one ear a band playing in London, and with the other the music which has been broadcast to America and back. It may be thought that with the great reputation Mr. Wells has in the literary world he knew what he was talking about and was competent to judge politics. He may know something about literature, but he knows nothing about political opinion. I thought Mr. Wells, 30 years ago, was a star of the first rank, but we know now he is a man who backs long shots. He just takes chances, and he is not so much a political judge as a first cousin to Old Moore's Almanac. It might be thought by the American people that he knew what he was talking about. Our Home Office allows him to go to America, by giving him a permit, to disseminate his views and to say these dreadful things.
You cannot expect anything but a pagan opinion from a pagan, and that is what Mr. Wells is. He said on his seventieth birthday, "I am like a child

who has to go to bed." And the nurse said, "It is time you came to bed." He said, "I like to play with my toys as a child does." That is the end of Mr. Wells, but to a Christian there is a morning. Death is not death. There is a resurrection and a continuation of life. That is the difference between a pagan and a Christian. Every day we have prayers in this House, and I always take great care to be here so that I may join in the communion of Saints, in praying to the God of the living and not of the dead—and as I am at prayer I call on all the Christian resources of the past, both living and dead. This man knows nothing about that. He is a pagan of the pagans. We Christians believe in a better life. We want, in the Mother of Parliaments, to make it quite clear that the common man-in-the-street for whom I speak resents very much these speeches of Mr. Wells, and regrets that a permit was given to him to enable him to say these dreadful things.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): The House has no reason to object to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) for having raised this question this afternoon. In a Debate of this character it is unfortunately unavoidable that we should make some personal remarks, for indeed the Debate is concerned with the person of Mr. H. G. Wells. If there is one thing on which I should have thought we could all have agreed, it would have been as to the great eminence of Mr. H. G. Wells—at any rate, in the world of fiction. Mr. Wells' books have, of course, an enormous circulation in this country, and no doubt an even greater circulation in the United States. Mr. Wells' excursions into the realm of fact have sometimes been less happy than his excursions into fiction. I would not, of course, dare to poke any fun at such an eminent gentleman, but one of his contemporaries, no less eminent, who is now dead, whose opinion I sought upon Mr. H. G. Wells' great work, the "Outline of History," replied to me by saying, "Wells is a man who writes more history than he reads." We are considering the position of Mr. Wells in relation to the granting of an exit permit to the United States, and it is relevant to bear in mind that Mr. Wells is over 70 years of age, and


the House will appreciate the relevance of that as my argument develops.
The responsibility for granting or refusing an exit permit rests upon the Home Secretary. In time of war it is necessary to control the movement of people desiring to leave these shores, not only in the interest of conserving our shipping resources, but also in the interest of national security. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), who is now no longer in his place, seemed to think it was an inherent right of a British subject to leave his country in time of war. That is very far from my view of the case. In time of peace I think it is a reasonable demand which an Englishman may put forward. At any rate, there would be no United States, and we should not be now having this Debate, had exit permits been required when the "Mayflower" left these shores in the year 1620. In time of war the Government must take control over the exodus of persons from these shores. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) asked whether it was the practice to obtain an undertaking that persons who were granted exit permits should refrain from criticism of the Government when they go overseas. There is no such practice, and indeed it would be folly to ask for such an undertaking, because there is no practical method of enforcing it.

Mr. Mander: I also asked whether there v$ as not an undertaking that he would not do anything to impede the country's war effort.

Mr. Peake: In considering the grant of an exit permit, we should refuse it to anybody if we had good reason to believe that he intended while abroad to inflict deliberate injury upon our country's war effort. The general principle upon which we have had to work is to reduce to a minimum the amount of overseas travel during war-time, The applicant for an exit permit must show that there is an element of public interest in his proposed journey, and the burden of proof lies upon the person applying for the permit.
In considering the question whether public interest does or does not arise, many hard and difficult cases fall to be decided. As this is a task which falls largely upon the Under-Secretary at the Home Office, I have had since the war began the assistance of an inter-Depart-

mental Committee representing many different Government Departments in considering these hard cases. We issued a public statement not long ago for the guidance of persons desirous of travelling overseas. The first rule laid down is that, subject to certain exceptions, no British subject between 16 and 60 is allowed at the present time to leave the United Kingdom. The theory underlying that rule is that if persons are over 60 years of age, the assistance which they can render to the war effort may be taken to be of so negligible a character that they should not be prevented from leaving the country. If a person falls within that general rule, it is not possible for us to refuse him a permit or to exercise control over what he may say, when he reaches his destination overseas. Let me make it clear, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), that the grant of a permit gives no sort of official standing to the person to whom it is granted.
Let us look at the circumstances surrounding Mr. Wells' application to proceed to the United States. His application was perfectly properly made, and he disclosed fully the purpose of his visit, which was to undertake a lecture tour. It is difficult, in considering what lecture tours are or are not in the public interest, to go by any hard and fast rules, but there is one element which is not without some importance, to which the attention of the House ought to be drawn. For our war effort there are certain things which can only be obtained from the United States. It is of great importance to this country that as many dollars as possible should be earned by British subjects. It is true that they may earn the dollars primarily for themselves, but the Treasury always provide in cases of this kind that those dollars shall be placed at their disposal in exchange for sterling in order to enable our Treasury to undertake purchases in the United States. It follows that, the more eminent the person is, the greater the number of dollars which he will earn and which will, therefore, eventually be at the disposal of the Treasury.

Earl Winterton: In view of the fact that we now learn for the first time why Mr. Wells was allowed to go to America, that it was because he was expected to amass a large sum in dollars as a curious exhibit, will the hon. Gentleman give


serious consideration to letting Sir Oswald Mosley be sent to the United States to give a series of lectures?

Mr. Peake: I think we had better consider one case at a time. One important point in considering whether a particular lecture tour is or is not in the public interest is the question of the eminence of the lecturer and the amount of foreign currency which will inure to the benefit of this country. In that respect we may regard Mr. H. G. Wells as an invisible export. [An HON. MEMBER: "But not inaudible."] In considering the question of the grant of an exit permit in these very difficult border-line cases of lecture tours, we have also to consider the effect of its refusal. I think it would be absolutely fatal if the idea got about in the United States that we would permit to proceed to that country only those whose views were favourable to the Government at present in office in this country. If we were considering an exit permit for someone to go to a totalitarian State it might be rather different; but in the case of the United States it does seem to me to be vitally important that they should regard us as exercising no bias whatever in a matter of this kind on purely political grounds. I have already said that if there was any suspicion of a deliberate intention to injure Great Britain's war effort, the exit permit would be refused, whatever the man's importance, but although, like my right hon. Friend opposite, I disagree with a great many of Mr. H. G. Wells's views, I have very little doubt, in fact, I have no doubt,

that Mr. H. G. Wells is a perfectly patriotic Englishman.

Sir P. Hannon: We have never complained of statements by Mr. H. G. Wells in criticism of politicians or Ministers in this country. Our complaint has been that he has been attacking in sarcastic language a distinguished gentleman who cannot defend himself.

Mr. Peake: We have to make up our minds in advance in each case whether an exit permit shall be granted. It is impossible for us to control every word which may fall from that gentleman's mouth once he has got overseas, and I really think that on this question of Mr. H. G. Wells we must leave it to the good sense of the American public to assess for themselves the value of the views of Mr. H. G. Wells on the various political and other questions to which, I have no doubt, he is about to address himself.

Colonel Arthur Evans: Has my hon. Friend any reason to believe that Mr. H. G. Wells has consulted Mr. Britling on the views he recently expressed, because it will be recalled that Mr. Britling saw it through in the last war, and I think he must be out of touch with Mr. Britling?

Mr. Peake: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's suggestion will be brought to the attention of Mr. Wells through the publicity of this Debate.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.